This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
Michael Eager <email@example.com> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> 2. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last GPLv2 release. The FSF will permit
> >> backports from mainline to GCC 4.2.1, if necessary, to be downlicensed
> >> to GPLv2, as part of that release.
> > I believe that we should make a clear statement with that release
> > that
> > any future backport from a later gcc release requires relicensing the
> > changed files to be GPLv3 or later. I believe this is consistent with
> > the two different licensing requirements, and I believe it is feasible
> > if inconvenient for vendors who distribute patched gcc releases.
> If I understand you, that means that backporting a fix from gcc-4.4
> to gcc-3.4 would suddenly make everything in gcc-3.4 fall under GPLv3.
> I understand that you may be talking about public branches, but
> there are (many) people who are currently using and maintaining
> previous releases. The same rules would apply equally to private
> backports of patches.
> This would be chaotic. Acme Co's version of gcc-3.4 might be GPLv2
> while MegaCorp's gcc-3.4 might be GPLv3.
Your understanding of what I am saying is correct. I agree that this
is not ideal. However, I do not see an alternative. And you didn't
propose one. I encourage you to think of one.
That said, I don't really agree with your claim that having some
versions of gcc 3.4 under GPLv2 and some under GPLv3 will be
"chaotic." For gcc users, the licenses simply don't differ
> > My personal preference would be to acknowledge that for our users
> > there is no significant difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3. And we
> > should acknowledge that people backporting patches from later releases
> > are already going to have to relicense to GPLv3.
> That's going to stop all private development until corporate legal
> folks get into sync with GPLv3.
Correct, for people who distribute gcc.
> > The only people who may be discomfited by that choice are distributors
> > of gcc who are unwilling to distribute code licensed under GPLv3.
> And anyone using any past release.
Incorrect. It only matters for distributors, not users.
Again, I am just the messenger here. I would like to see a different
approach, but what could that be?