This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:55:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFH: GPLv3
- References: <4695B50B.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Will someone (or someones) please volunteer to change the various files
that mention GPLv2 to mention GPLv3 instead, to change the COPYING file
in the gcc/ directory, and to look for other things that need to change?
It has not yet been decided what to do about files that are part of
run-time libraries and are covered by GPL/LGPL + exception. Therefore,
no changes to
to what ? :-) I assume that there is a missing part of that last
sentence which reads "these files will take place at the moment".
I think however that a small change to such files may be necessary. If
I change the contents of the COPYING file over to GPLv3, then I think
that it might be wise to create a new file - COPYING_v2 - which contains
the GPLv2 and which can be referred to in the copyright notice of files
which are still under the GPLv2.
It has also not yet been decided whether backports of bug-fixes from
GPLv3 versions of GCC to older GPLv2 versions of GCC (e.g., GCC 4.1)
will result in the patched compilers being GPLv3. If you have thoughts
about that, you might wish to contact the FSF.
This is what the FSF had to say when I raised this issue with them for
the binutils project:
: Since the previous releases were licensed under GPLv2 or later, all
: maintainers need to do is upgrade their backport to GPLv3 or later --
: then they'll be able to incorporate patches that were never released
: under GPLv2.