GPL version issue

[Anders F Björklund]

Gregor Richards wrote:

> The code in dmd/src/dmd is licensed as follows:
>
> // License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
> // in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.
> 
> This is problematic because:
> 
> 1) There is no file named gnu.txt
> 2) The file gpl.txt includes the ancient GPL v1, and never is it 
> explicitly stated that you may use later versions.

However, the readme.txt has the right file name at least:
"These sources are free, they are redistributable and modifiable
under the terms of the GNU General Public License (attached as gpl.txt),
or the Artistic License (attached as artistic.txt)."

So I guess Walter just made 83 typos, or something... :-)
(and you must be the first one that have noticed it ?)

> This is a problem because it may be implied that you can only release 
> the DMD frontend under version 1 one of the license, in which case I'm 
> fairly sure that GDC isn't even legal :).  I'm sure the intention was to 
> release it under any version of the GPL.

GDC uses version 2 or later, as specified in the README:
    "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
     it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
     the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
     (at your option) any later version."

Maybe DMD gpl.txt could be changed use the same one, i.e. v2 ?
The latest original is at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt

> I think the license text should be changed to:
> 
> // License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
> // in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License; either
> // version 1 (included in gpl.txt) or (at your option) any later
> // version.

GPL v2 would be nice (same as GCC), if not allowing for the new v3...
There is some controversy over v3, for instance Linux uses v2 only ?

But a good start would be: 1) updating DMD sources 2) updating gpl.txt

--anders