How would one best go about the effort of getting D into the main GCC distro.?

http://gcc.gnu.org/frontends.html

I can't recall seeing anything in the NG's about this. If it has been discussed at length already, please point out the threads.

If someone feels more qualified than me on this (which would be pretty much
anyone), be my guest..

I believe that this would be a very big deal for D at this stage -- make it much more accessible to many more people (plus it's good PR).

Walter - For the sake of discussion with the GCC folks, would it be correct at this point to call the D reference compiler and lang. spec. "late beta"? I'm pretty sure their primary concern would be including a language or front-end undergoing major changes.

Here are my arguments:

- The D programming language is seeing a lot of buzz around the 'net:
- Slashdot links
- Language Shootout benchmarks
- Feature list
- TIOBE index to demonstrate that there is quite a bit of search-engine activity
related to the language (currently 23rd).
- No licencing issues.

- The GDC work is already done and is actively being worked on currently.

- Active user group

- The last language added was Java - why wait until a language takes off commercially.. Why not add a promising language to *help it take off* before that point.

Thanks,

- Dave

In article <dsistd$1ql2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>
>
>How would one best go about the effort of getting D into the main GCC distro.?
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/frontends.html
>
>I can't recall seeing anything in the NG's about this. If it has been discussed at length already, please point out the threads.
>
>If someone feels more qualified than me on this (which would be pretty much
>anyone), be my guest..
>
>I believe that this would be a very big deal for D at this stage -- make it much more accessible to many more people (plus it's good PR).
>
>Walter - For the sake of discussion with the GCC folks, would it be correct at this point to call the D reference compiler and lang. spec. "late beta"? I'm pretty sure their primary concern would be including a language or front-end undergoing major changes.
>
>Here are my arguments:
>
>- The D programming language is seeing a lot of buzz around the 'net:
>- Slashdot links
>- Language Shootout benchmarks
>- Feature list
>- TIOBE index to demonstrate that there is quite a bit of search-engine activity
>related to the language (currently 23rd).
>- No licencing issues.
>
>- The GDC work is already done and is actively being worked on currently.
>
>- Active user group
>
>- The last language added was Java - why wait until a language takes off commercially.. Why not add a promising language to *help it take off* before that point.
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Dave

At least one big obstacle.. for gdc to be incorporated into the primary gcc source tree, the copyright would need to be assigned to the FSF.  I'm going to suspect that that's a non-starter.  If that part could be pulled off, then I don't believe there's any signifigant blockers at all.

Later,
Brad

In article <dsj32q$2afk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>
>At least one big obstacle.. for gdc to be incorporated into the primary gcc source tree, the copyright would need to be assigned to the FSF.  I'm going to suspect that that's a non-starter.  If that part could be pulled off, then I don't believe there's any signifigant blockers at all.
>
>Later,
>Brad
>

You wouldn't happen to have a link explaining that in more detail, would you?

The D front-end and phobos are licenced GPL and/or public domain, and those are the only things used in GDC. Isn't that enough? What about C, C++ and Java - you're telling me that the copyrights to those were assigned to the FSF <g>

Thanks,

- Dave

In article <dsjggk$2qr3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>
>In article <dsj32q$2afk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>>
>>At least one big obstacle.. for gdc to be incorporated into the primary gcc source tree, the copyright would need to be assigned to the FSF.  I'm going to suspect that that's a non-starter.  If that part could be pulled off, then I don't believe there's any signifigant blockers at all.
>>
>>Later,
>>Brad
>>
>
>You wouldn't happen to have a link explaining that in more detail, would you?
>
>The D front-end and phobos are licenced GPL and/or public domain, and those are the only things used in GDC. Isn't that enough? What about C, C++ and Java - you're telling me that the copyrights to those were assigned to the FSF <g>
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Dave

Correct, everything in the gcc code base is either copyright FSF or fully public domain:

http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
See the legal prerequisites section.

Additionally, I've lurked on the gcc mailing list for the past several years and can assure you, that will be a requirement for it to enter their source repository.

Later,
Brad

In article <dsjn0j$1sb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>
>In article <dsjggk$2qr3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>>
>>In article <dsj32q$2afk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>>>
>>>At least one big obstacle.. for gdc to be incorporated into the primary gcc source tree, the copyright would need to be assigned to the FSF.  I'm going to suspect that that's a non-starter.  If that part could be pulled off, then I don't believe there's any signifigant blockers at all.
>>>
>>>Later,
>>>Brad
>>>
>>
>>You wouldn't happen to have a link explaining that in more detail, would you?
>>
>>The D front-end and phobos are licenced GPL and/or public domain, and those are the only things used in GDC. Isn't that enough? What about C, C++ and Java - you're telling me that the copyrights to those were assigned to the FSF <g>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>- Dave
>
>Correct, everything in the gcc code base is either copyright FSF or fully public domain:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
>See the legal prerequisites section.
>
>Additionally, I've lurked on the gcc mailing list for the past several years and can assure you, that will be a requirement for it to enter their source repository.
>
>Later,
>Brad
>

Thanks for the info., Brad.

I don't have a legal degree, but it looks like the public domain stuff is already covered, even though a 'public domain' license at one time was not considered 'GPL compatible' <rant>(but they are willing to use PD code if they (or their cause) benefits - anyone else see the irony here?). Looks like the only people who *can* make decent money off of software anymore are lawyers, thereby making it cheaper and more 'free' (as in speech) just to buy the right to use commercial software</rant>

As for the GPL'd stuff, I guess I don't see how assigning copyright would further indemnify the FSF if the GPL is worth anything in the first place. <rant>Another irony - the FSF apparently does not put enough legal faith in it's own GPL for *them* to distribute GPL'd code without a copywrite assignment, this is just ASININE</rant>

I guess it's up to Walter if he wants to assign copyright, but I for one would say the hell with it in his shoes.

This is just wild.

In article <dsjqgt$751$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>
>In article <dsjn0j$1sb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>>
>>In article <dsjggk$2qr3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>>>
>>>In article <dsj32q$2afk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>>>>
>>>>At least one big obstacle.. for gdc to be incorporated into the primary gcc source tree, the copyright would need to be assigned to the FSF.  I'm going to suspect that that's a non-starter.  If that part could be pulled off, then I don't believe there's any signifigant blockers at all.
>>>>
>>>>Later,
>>>>Brad
>>>>
>>>
>>>You wouldn't happen to have a link explaining that in more detail, would you?
>>>
>>>The D front-end and phobos are licenced GPL and/or public domain, and those are the only things used in GDC. Isn't that enough? What about C, C++ and Java - you're telling me that the copyrights to those were assigned to the FSF <g>
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>- Dave
>>
>>Correct, everything in the gcc code base is either copyright FSF or fully public domain:
>>
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
>>See the legal prerequisites section.
>>
>>Additionally, I've lurked on the gcc mailing list for the past several years and can assure you, that will be a requirement for it to enter their source repository.
>>
>>Later,
>>Brad
>>
>
>Thanks for the info., Brad.
>
>I don't have a legal degree, but it looks like the public domain stuff is already covered, even though a 'public domain' license at one time was not considered 'GPL compatible' <rant>(but they are willing to use PD code if they (or their cause) benefits - anyone else see the irony here?). Looks like the only people who *can* make decent money off of software anymore are lawyers, thereby making it cheaper and more 'free' (as in speech) just to buy the right to use commercial software</rant>
>
>As for the GPL'd stuff, I guess I don't see how assigning copyright would further indemnify the FSF if the GPL is worth anything in the first place. <rant>Another irony - the FSF apparently does not put enough legal faith in it's own GPL for *them* to distribute GPL'd code without a copywrite assignment, this is just ASININE</rant>
>
>I guess it's up to Walter if he wants to assign copyright, but I for one would say the hell with it in his shoes.
>
>This is just wild.

You're reading more into the policy than exists.  See also:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

for more on this, a more appropriate gnu legal forum would be better.  I can't find one just glancing at the gnu website, and I'm not particularly interested in spending more time looking since I don't care to engage in that sort of debate.  I'm just pointing out a requirement that fsf and thus the gcc team will insist on fulfilling before gdc could be incorporated.

Later,
Brad