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.

== 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

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.

Walter Bright schrieb:
> 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.

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

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-compiler-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.

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:

> 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.)

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.

* 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.

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.