ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop

[Anders F Björklund]

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:

> One thing that bothers me is that what does this GNU mean here? Do we have to 
> assign any copyrights to GNU? If that is not required, it will most probably 
> hurt the development of GNU D compiler tools. (at some point the transition 
> from gpl2->gpl3 will take place)

I don't think we have to, unless we want it to be part of the main GCC ?
It would be nice if we could get the needed D *patches* conditionalized
into the main GCC tree, but I don't think that all of D has to be there.
(we can still package it together with GCC, since they're all under GPL)

I think it's enough if you can add the "d" and "libphobos" directories
to an existing GCC tarball, patch some Makefiles, and be on your way ?
But technically I think the name of it is "GDC - D Front End for GCC",
that is: GDC is just an acronym, as using GNU isn't really authorized ?


DMD is copyright Digital Mars, and GDC is copyright David Friedman,
DMD licensed under GPL v1 and GDC under GPL v2 (should be compatible)

To *really* be "the GNU D Compiler", both of these must sign their
copyright over to "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", I suppose... ?

At least that is how I interpret: http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
(they say either assign to FSF, or give up copyright by making it PD)

But I haven't had any FSF complaints about me using "GNU D Compiler"
for it on the gdcmac site (http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/), so far....

--anders