This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: GPL2+exceptions -> GPL3+exceptions (non-Ada)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:17:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFA: GPL2+exceptions -> GPL3+exceptions (non-Ada)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <49D716B9.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:13:45AM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> While you've got that sed script handy: do we have any more need for the
>> COPYING file, which is GPLv2? Should we consider "mv COPYING3 COPYING"
>> and changing the license boilerplate to refer to COPYING?
> In my opinion this is not a great idea because it would mean changing
> even more files. The patch is already 15M long as it is.
> I think that removing the current COPYING file would be OK and might
> help to reduce confusion for readers examining the licences of the
> source files.
We still have a bunch of GPLv2+LGPLv2.1+ files in the tree, even after the
patch. E.g. files like soft-fp copied unmodified from glibc are supposed to
stay under their current licenses. So I think we should at least for now
keep COPYING around.