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

[Gregor Richards]

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> 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

I think of it as the "GCC D Compiler", since it's the D compiler for the 
GCC collection.  That acronym is not recursive, inaccurate, or presumptuous.

  - Gregor Richards