Re: RFH: GPLv3

["Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On 12 Jul 2007 04:37:20 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs.tamu.edu> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> | The GCC SC is still discussing a few of the finer points of the
> | transition to GPLv3.
>
> Thanks for the update!
>
>
> [...]
>
> | 3. After GCC 4.2.1 is released, we will renumber the branch to GCC 4.3.
> |   What would have been GCC 4.2.2 will instead be GCC 4.3.3, to try to
> | emphasize the GPLv3 switch.  The GCC mainline will then be GCC 4.4.
>
> What a mess! (Sorry).  Was the option of closing the GCC-4.2.x branch
> considered, instead of releasing GCC-4.2.2 as GCC-4.3.2?

I agree, this looks like a mess (and it will definitely confuse users).  Closing
the branch would be an option, but the tricky question what happens if
there are backports from mainline fixes to the (closed) branch as part of
vendor releases remains.  (Likewise for the 4.1 branch)

I would definitely like to have a public statement from the FSF on this issue.

I suppose backporting your own fixes is a no-brainer, as you don't lose the
rights to re-license your own contributions, but without an official statement
from the FSF there will be still a lot of confusion on this issue.

> | It has also not yet been decided whether backports of bug-fixes from
> | GPLv3 versions of GCC to older GPLv2 versions of GCC (e.g., GCC 4.1)
>
> We can make a final release from GCC-4.1.x and close it definitely.
> We should strive for some kind of mononiticy in terms of release
> series and licensing.

We can just close the branch.  Though I expect vendors to continue to need
to maintain it for another 5+ years.  Maybe we can get mutual agreement
from contributors to re-license their contributions to currently active branches
under GPL v2 as well and this way side-stepping the FSF on this matter.

Richard.