This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][PING] Script for automatic checking of patches
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Cc: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Laurent GUERBY <laurent at guerby dot net>, geoffk at geoffk dot org
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:43:18 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][PING] Script for automatic checking of patches
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <025901c7bd53$fc66a8b0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <1183487653.9016.359.camel@pc2> <002a01c7bdb9$f17d5230$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1184489930.9016.613.camel@pc2> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <476A7EB9.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <476A9ACD.email@example.com>
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 12/20/07 11:32, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>> Just a question for which I cannot find the answer.
>> Looking at the scripts in contrib/ some of them are under
>> GPL v3 and others are under GPL v2. Which one is preferred?
>> Are these scripts also covered by the transition of GCC to v3
>> and should they automatically be converted to v3?
> No clue. I would presume we prefer v3, but that's a question for the FSF.
> I'm sure someone in the SC could give us a better answer.
As per all other FSF submissions to GCC, new scripts should be "GPLv3 or
later". As for existing scripts, if they say "v2 or later" they should
be upgraded to "v3 or later". If they just say "v2", we should probably
just leave them alone. If we're sufficiently motivated, we could ask
the FSF what to do -- but that's probably overkill for a few shell
scripts that aren't part of GCC itself.
(650) 331-3385 x713