Re: RFH: GPLv3

[Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com>]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
> > 	Let me try to stop some confusion and accusations right here.  RMS
> > *did not* request or specify GCC 4.3.3 following GCC 4.2.2.  That was a
> > proposal from a member of the GCC SC.  The numbering of the first GPLv3
> > release was not a requirement from RMS or the FSF.
>
> I don't particularly have a dog in the version number fight.
>
> I think it's potentially surprising to have a "bug fix release" contain
> a major licensing change -- whether or not it particularly affects
> users, it's certainly a big deal, as witnessed by the fact that it's at
> the top of the FSF's priority list!  But, if there's a clear consensus
> here, I'm fine with that.

It may be worth pointing out that this is going to happen anyway on the 
distributed versions, if there are vendors still providing 4.1 (or 4.0) 
with backported patches.

Better, IMHO, to have the FSF address the surprise rather than leave the 
distributors to do it individually and haphazardly.

- Brooks