This is the mail archive of the 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: RFH: GPLv3

$.02 from a user who has been following the discussion:

1. Don't jack with the version numbers. This is confusing.
2. Turn off public access to the code while changing license text in the source.
3. Backports to current stuff should stay under current licence, i.e. a gcc 4.2.1 containing bits and pieces of 4.3 should stay under GPLv2 until 4.3 is released. If a 4.2.2 comes out after the release of 4.3, it should go to GPLv3. I.e, all open branches should change licenses at once.
4. gcc should put a short reference to the license in the version string. My MingGW version of gcc describes itself as
"gcc version 3.4.5 (mingw special)" A future MinGW version should do something like "gcc version 4.3.0 (mingw special) GPLv3". Every vendor who distributes a tweaked gcc should be requested to to implement this ASAP.
5. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a command-line option to describe the license(s) in more detail. This would be especially useful when using compilers from vendors like AdaCore who have products like GNAT GPL which has a run-time library that is governed by GPL rather than LGPL.
6. gcc isn't the only software product that will be affected by confusion about the license. gcc should provide a small license-display library that users can use in their own products. This would be easy enough for any user to implement, but if it comes with gcc, it would be more likely to be widely used.

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