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

[Anders F Björklund]

Georg Wrede wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> I think we ought to split the DM license. One would be tailored to the 
> FSF needs (do I dare say, their wants?), and the other would be a dual 
> MIT / QT (or whatever, you all get the picture), license.

I'm not sure I follow ? The *license* to DMD is no problem, since it
is already split between "what the FSF wants" (i.e. GPL), a "whatever" 
license (i.e. Artistic), and also allowing DM's proprietary use of it.

The "problem" here is the *copyright*. In order to be a GNU project,
then the copyright must be signed over to the FSF or abandoned (PD).
i.e. change into: "Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc."

The question remains is whether we can call it "GNU D Compiler", or not,
even if not getting Walter Bright and David Friedman to sign it over ?
If we can't, the vendor should change: from version(GNU) to version(GCC)

>> DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman, DMD is
>> licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.
> 
> Right! What a mess.

Not really ? GPL v1 and v2 are pretty similar, and they are compatible.
(It would still be better if DMD was changed to GPL v2 instead, though)

> Yes, a backup plan is dearly needed here. (Sun Tsu, Macchiavelli, etc. 
> You know, those guys weren't _always_ wrong!)

When I said "backup plan", I really meant what David Friedman has been 
using as a name for GDC since he originally released it - back in 2004:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/D/gnu/518.html

--anders