ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop

[Bruno Medeiros]

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> 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

As I am a rabid fan of correct nomenclature (for those who haven't 
noticed...), if GDC is not GNU, then maybe it should not be called "GNU 
D Compiler". I don't know what it means to be "GNU" though (and I'm not 
bothered to check it out now), so I don't know if GDC is a "GNU D 
Compiler".
(Yes this is a minor tiny issue, but still)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D