Jerry Quinn wrote: > I think you're slightly incorrect, Brad. DigitalMars still owns the > copyright to the original source (call it copy A). A fork (called copy B) is > donated to the FSF. DigitalMars still gets to make changes to copy A and > license them as it sees fit. Copy B is part of the GCC codebase and would > evolve separately. > > Moving changes between them would require the same kind of donation process > as the original transfer. Folks making changes to the DMD FE would have to > contribute those changes to FSF as well to get them into copy B and vice > versa.
As best I could tell there were two options, the one Brad was referring to[1], and the one you asked about. > In the end, the language spec should be the thing that unifies the D > community rather than the adhoc definition provided by a particular front end > implementation. It's just a matter of how to get there. I think Brad was refering to the "donation" process that is required for propogating changes from DM to GCC and visa versa. Since GCC will be using the same front end, it would make since that patches should be applied to both reducing duplicate effort in fixing bugs. I think that at this time, contributers to the front end would not have a problem with making these "donations." However in the feature, you might see more people contributing to GCC and not want to donate it for GPL/Artistic... And when that happens I don't think Walter would care that GCC is getting more attention. 1. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00432.html
