www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D.gnu - D.gnu is not copyrighted GNU ? so funny! !

reply "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
I feel so tired about all these.
Apr 29 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:


 I feel so tired about all these.


If you mean if the copyright of GDC is assigned
over to the Free Software Foundation: it isn't.
And it's very possible that Walter is not prepared
to do this either, for the (essential) DMD parts.

DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman,
DMD is licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.


Thus a careful general would either get an OK from FSF
about using the name "GNU D Compiler" anyway (since it
is using either GPL or a GPL-compatible license: zlib/PD,
it isn't that remote from the ideals of the rest of GCC ?)

Or maybe start planning falling back on e.g. "GDC D Compiler" ?
(I hope that it doesn't ever go this far, but you never know)


For now, I am using "GNU D Compiler" with vendor(GNU) myself.

--anders
Apr 30 2006
next sibling parent reply "Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:
Many developers love D, but few people take part in the development of D 
compiler and library.
Who knows why?

Many project about D stalled, stopped. What's the problem?

HA,I will just use D for myself works from now, and don't talk anything 
about the progress of D any more.

I admire your's endurance about the chaos. :)


"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> 
??????:e31ofg$c6c$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Boris Wang wrote:


 I feel so tired about all these.


 If you mean if the copyright of GDC is assigned
 over to the Free Software Foundation: it isn't.
 And it's very possible that Walter is not prepared
 to do this either, for the (essential) DMD parts.

 DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman,
 DMD is licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.


 Thus a careful general would either get an OK from FSF
 about using the name "GNU D Compiler" anyway (since it
 is using either GPL or a GPL-compatible license: zlib/PD,
 it isn't that remote from the ideals of the rest of GCC ?)

 Or maybe start planning falling back on e.g. "GDC D Compiler" ?
 (I hope that it doesn't ever go this far, but you never know)


 For now, I am using "GNU D Compiler" with vendor(GNU) myself.

 --anders
Apr 30 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Boris Wang wrote:


 Many developers love D, but few people take part in the development of D 
 compiler and library.
 Who knows why?


I think that is to be expected, it's a little harder than
just using it - and most people are not interested in the
compiler/library but in what they can accomplish with them...


 Many project about D stalled, stopped. What's the problem?


It is not unusual for software projects, D is no exception.


 HA,I will just use D for myself works from now, and don't talk anything 
 about the progress of D any more.


Hope that the latest discussions didn't "scare" you off,
D needs some assistance. But writing D code is great too.


 I admire your's endurance about the chaos. :)


Welcome to the real open source world, Neo :-)

--anders
Apr 30 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:

 Boris Wang wrote:
 

 I feel so tired about all these.


 
 
 If you mean if the copyright of GDC is assigned
 over to the Free Software Foundation: it isn't.
 And it's very possible that Walter is not prepared
 to do this either, for the (essential) DMD parts.
 
 DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman,
 DMD is licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.
 
 
 Thus a careful general would either get an OK from FSF
 about using the name "GNU D Compiler" anyway (since it
 is using either GPL or a GPL-compatible license: zlib/PD,
 it isn't that remote from the ideals of the rest of GCC ?)
 
 Or maybe start planning falling back on e.g. "GDC D Compiler" ?
 (I hope that it doesn't ever go this far, but you never know)
 
 
 For now, I am using "GNU D Compiler" with vendor(GNU) myself.
 
 --anders


I think of it as the "GCC D Compiler", since it's the D compiler for the 
GCC collection.  That acronym is not recursive, inaccurate, or presumptuous.

  - Gregor Richards
Apr 30 2006
parent =?windows-1252?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:


 Or maybe start planning falling back on e.g. "GDC D Compiler" ?
 (I hope that it doesn't ever go this far, but you never know)
 For now, I am using "GNU D Compiler" with vendor(GNU) myself.


 
 I think of it as the "GCC D Compiler", since it's the D compiler for the 
 GCC collection.  That acronym is not recursive, inaccurate, or 
 presumptuous.


That would work too, if we are unable to use the full GNU name ?
I think that GNU and GPL are important parts of GDC, so I have
made sure to include both in prominent places. Hope they like it.

But both acronyms fit:
gdc - GCC D Compiler
gcc - GCC C Compiler
g++ - GCC C++ Compiler
/or/
gdc - GNU D Compiler
gpc - GNU Pascal Compiler
gcj - GNU Compiler for the Java™ Programming Language

And I totally blame Sun for all confusion on what Java really is.
But in this case, "GJC" was already taken by "GJ - Generic Java".
It was initially called gjc*, when it was early in the development.

--anders

* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2000-q1/msg00153.html
Apr 30 2006
prev sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:

 Boris Wang wrote:
 

 I feel so tired about all these.


 
 If you mean if the copyright of GDC is assigned over to the Free
 Software Foundation: it isn't. And it's very possible that Walter is
 not prepared to do this either, for the (essential) DMD parts.


I think we ought to split the DM license. One would be tailored to the 
FSF needs (do I dare say, their wants?), and the other would be a dual 
MIT / QT (or whatever, you all get the picture), license.


 DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman, DMD is
 licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.


Right! What a mess.


 Thus a careful general would either get an OK from FSF about using
 the name "GNU D Compiler" anyway (since it is using either GPL or a
 GPL-compatible license: zlib/PD, it isn't that remote from the ideals
 of the rest of GCC ?)


I've (unfortunately) personally met RMS, and we had a long talk about 
various subjects. End result: it'd behoove us to get a coherent, 
on-the-surface -- timid-looking proposition, and we should serve it with 
enough fanfare and drum roll to get sufficient publicity, and still(!) 
somehow create an atmosphere of utmost respect and humility. (On the 
very verge of crawling.)

Nerds: this is _politics_ (at its, er, profoundest).


 Or maybe start planning falling back on e.g. "GDC D Compiler" ? (I
 hope that it doesn't ever go this far, but you never know)
 
 For now, I am using "GNU D Compiler" with vendor(GNU) myself.


Yes, a backup plan is dearly needed here. (Sun Tsu, Macchiavelli, etc. 
You know, those guys weren't _always_ wrong!)

And often, just having the backup plan, makes it obsolete. (But, IMHO, 
by Bob, if you don't have such a plan, boy are you gonna need it!!)
May 06 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:


 If you mean if the copyright of GDC is assigned over to the Free
 Software Foundation: it isn't. And it's very possible that Walter is
 not prepared to do this either, for the (essential) DMD parts.


 
 I think we ought to split the DM license. One would be tailored to the 
 FSF needs (do I dare say, their wants?), and the other would be a dual 
 MIT / QT (or whatever, you all get the picture), license.


I'm not sure I follow ? The *license* to DMD is no problem, since it
is already split between "what the FSF wants" (i.e. GPL), a "whatever" 
license (i.e. Artistic), and also allowing DM's proprietary use of it.

The "problem" here is the *copyright*. In order to be a GNU project,
then the copyright must be signed over to the FSF or abandoned (PD).
i.e. change into: "Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc."

The question remains is whether we can call it "GNU D Compiler", or not,
even if not getting Walter Bright and David Friedman to sign it over ?
If we can't, the vendor should change: from version(GNU) to version(GCC)


 DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman, DMD is
 licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.


 
 Right! What a mess.


Not really ? GPL v1 and v2 are pretty similar, and they are compatible.
(It would still be better if DMD was changed to GPL v2 instead, though)


 Yes, a backup plan is dearly needed here. (Sun Tsu, Macchiavelli, etc. 
 You know, those guys weren't _always_ wrong!)


When I said "backup plan", I really meant what David Friedman has been 
using as a name for GDC since he originally released it - back in 2004:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/D/gnu/518.html

--anders
May 07 2006