This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, ian at airs dot com
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:18:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574
References: <48C056E3.1020305@redhat.com> <84fc9c000809050142r75e19be4o653bcfe9e944f7@mail.gmail.com> <48C16C8A.3010103@redhat.com> <48D932A0.7050504@codesourcery.com> <84fc9c000809241325h4f9bf7e6p96b6c5a29419fb05@mail.gmail.com>

Richard Guenther wrote:

> I thought for the 4.1 branch there was the additional issue that we
> do not want to make it GPLv3.  So while individual contributions under
> GLPv2 are ok, backporting other peoples work may create a problem.
> 
> So I thought better really close the branch to avoid even thinking about
> this issue.

That's a good point.

I suppose we could apply GPLv3 to the 4.1 branch, but I agree that we
shouldn't do that.  Of course, the worst thing would be to apply a GPLv3
patch without fully converting the license notices, which would be very
confusing.

But, as long as the patch is GPLv2, I don't see a particular problem.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- [PATCH] PR c++/27574
  - From: Dodji Seketeli
- Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]