• Walter Bright (3/3) Nov 08 2010 I posted the question on this list:
• Iain Buclaw (5/7) Nov 09 2010 This is indeed some delightful news to be waking up to. I sure hope we c...
• Walter Bright (3/11) Nov 09 2010 Once I do the paperwork, it'll be up to you guys to convince gcc to merg...
• Jerry Quinn (5/14) Nov 10 2010 Walter, it's great to see you've been able to find time to pursue this n...
• Walter Bright (2/4) Nov 16 2010 It's ok, we're in this for the long haul.
• Daniel Gibson (8/14) Nov 09 2010 That's *really* great news :-)
• Walter Bright (8/24) Nov 09 2010 While the FSF will license the code back to Digital Mars, if the gdc fol...
• Florian Weimer (5/8) Nov 11 2010 In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain the
• Daniel Gibson (2/12) Nov 11 2010 No, because GCC (or the FSF) wants to use the GPL with them having the c...
• Florian Weimer (3/10) Nov 11 2010 Based on recent postings to the gcc mailing list, I think this is up
• Mandeep Singh Brar (6/15) May 23 2011 GPL

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

I posted the question on this list:

http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-compiler-into-gcc.html

hopefully we can move forward with this.

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I posted the question on this list:

http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-compiler-into-gcc.html
 hopefully we can move forward with this.

This is indeed some delightful news to be waking up to. I sure hope we could
gain
some traction on this too.

Regards

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I posted the question on this list:

 http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-compiler-into-gcc.html
 hopefully we can move forward with this.

 
 This is indeed some delightful news to be waking up to. I sure hope we could
gain
 some traction on this too.

Once I do the paperwork, it'll be up to you guys to convince gcc to merge it
in! 
Getting gdc into the standard distribution will be a huge win for D.

Jerry Quinn <jlquinn optonline.net> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I posted the question on this list:

 http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-compiler-into-gcc.html
 hopefully we can move forward with this.

 

 Once I do the paperwork, it'll be up to you guys to convince gcc to merge it
in! 
 Getting gdc into the standard distribution will be a huge win for D.

Walter, it's great to see you've been able to find time to pursue this now! 
I'll certainly add my 2 cents to get integration going :-)  I hope you can
resolve the licensing issues to everyone's satisfaction.

Even if the licensing issues are sorted out today, I don't think it can
realistically be added to the gcc source tree before 4.7.  They're already in
stage 3, which will preclude any changes to the main compiler if needed.

cheers,
Jerry

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

Jerry Quinn wrote:
 Even if the licensing issues are sorted out today, I don't think it can
 realistically be added to the gcc source tree before 4.7.

It's ok, we're in this for the long haul.

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright schrieb:
 I posted the question on this list:
 
 http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-co
piler-into-gcc.html 
 
 
 hopefully we can move forward with this.

That's *really* great news :-)

To assign the copyright of all files to the FSF you need an OK of all GDC 
contributors, right? Have you asked them yet?
If not, finding out who they were and getting a currenct E-Mail address of them 
etc may need some time.. so it made sense if someone would start doing that.

Cheers,
- Daniel

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

Daniel Gibson wrote:
 Walter Bright schrieb:
 I posted the question on this list:

 http://www.listware.net/201011/gcc-gcc/25881-merging-gdc-gnu-d-co
piler-into-gcc.html 


 hopefully we can move forward with this.

 
 That's *really* great news :-)
 
 To assign the copyright of all files to the FSF you need an OK of all 
 GDC contributors, right?

Not for the DMD front end.

 Have you asked them yet?
 If not, finding out who they were and getting a currenct E-Mail address 
 of them etc may need some time.. so it made sense if someone would start 
 doing that.

While the FSF will license the code back to Digital Mars, if the gdc folks 
contribute code that is FSF copyrighted, I cannot incorporate that back into
the 
dmd front end.

In other words, any changes in gdc that affect the front end should be given to 
Digital Mars, I will transfer the copyright to FSF, and get the license back. 
Otherwise, I cannot fold in those changes.

Florian Weimer <fw deneb.enyo.de> writes:

* Walter Bright:

 In other words, any changes in gdc that affect the front end should be
 given to Digital Mars, I will transfer the copyright to FSF, and get
 the license back. Otherwise, I cannot fold in those changes.

In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain the
frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something
BSD-style.  (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the GPL
was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Florian Weimer schrieb:
 * Walter Bright:
 
 In other words, any changes in gdc that affect the front end should be
 given to Digital Mars, I will transfer the copyright to FSF, and get
 the license back. Otherwise, I cannot fold in those changes.

 
 In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain the
 frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something
 BSD-style.  (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the GPL
 was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)

No, because GCC (or the FSF) wants to use the GPL with them having the
copyright.

Florian Weimer <fw deneb.enyo.de> writes:

* Daniel Gibson:

 Florian Weimer schrieb:

 In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain the
 frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something
 BSD-style.  (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the GPL
 was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)

 No, because GCC (or the FSF) wants to use the GPL with them having
 the copyright.

Based on recent postings to the gcc mailing list, I think this is up
to negotiations.

Mandeep Singh Brar <mandeep brars.co.in> writes:

* Daniel Gibson:

 Florian Weimer schrieb:

 In this case, it might be simpler to contribute and maintain


the
 frontend under a less restrictive license, perhaps something
 BSD-style.  (I'm assuming that the primary reason to choose the


GPL
 was compatibility with GCC, which might not be the case.)

 No, because GCC (or the FSF) wants to use the GPL with them

having
 the copyright.

Based on recent postings to the gcc mailing list, I think this is

up
to negotiations.

Is this still on?