D.gnu is not copyrighted GNU ? so funny! !

[Boris Wang]

Many developers love D, but few people take part in the development of D 
compiler and library.
Who knows why?

Many project about D stalled, stopped. What's the problem?

HA,I will just use D for myself works from now, and don't talk anything 
about the progress of D any more.

I admire your's endurance about the chaos. :)


"Anders F Björklund" <afb at algonet.se> 
??????:e31ofg$c6c$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> Boris Wang wrote:
>
>> I feel so tired about all these.
>
> If you mean if the copyright of GDC is assigned
> over to the Free Software Foundation: it isn't.
> And it's very possible that Walter is not prepared
> to do this either, for the (essential) DMD parts.
>
> DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman,
> DMD is licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.
>
>
> Thus a careful general would either get an OK from FSF
> about using the name "GNU D Compiler" anyway (since it
> is using either GPL or a GPL-compatible license: zlib/PD,
> it isn't that remote from the ideals of the rest of GCC ?)
>
> Or maybe start planning falling back on e.g. "GDC D Compiler" ?
> (I hope that it doesn't ever go this far, but you never know)
>
>
> For now, I am using "GNU D Compiler" with vendor(GNU) myself.
>
> --anders