On 1/23/2010 4:15 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: >> Walter Bright, el 23 de enero a las 12:54 me escribiste: >>> Jerry Quinn wrote: >>>> Walter Bright Wrote: >>>>> Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the >>>>> copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to >>>>> the original? >>>> Hi, Walter, >>>> >>>> The answer appears to be yes: >>>> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00430.html >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> >>> That's great news. I suppose I should look over the forms they talk >>> about! >> >> Great news indeed! Since DMD FE is GPL I think it won't be any trouble to >> fold in the new changes back to GDC as they did (and LDC too), so it >> won't >> be really a *fork*, right? > > Well, still I won't be supporting gdc directly. It would mean a team > that would be willing to take new DMD FE updates and fold them into GDC, > and then follow whatever gcc's build and release conventions are.
I don't think you got the answer you were looking for. You got an answer to a different question. If you assign the copyright over to the FSF, they then own the code. You'd have a license to use it as you like in return, but you would no longer be the owner. Additionally, as pointed out in the gcc@ thread, contributions coming into the gcc tree wouldn't have anything other than the gpl license attached to them and that would likely make them problematic to re-distribute from your tree with the dual gpl/artistic license. In simpler words, this is still far from straightforward. I'd still love for there to be fewer split efforts on the compiler front, so I do encourage trying to find a workable solution.. but tread carefully. Later, Brad
