This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
- From: "Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>
- To: "Basile STARYNKEVITCH" <basile at starynkevitch dot net>
- Cc: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:29:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFH: GPLv3
- References: <4695B50B.email@example.com> <469623AA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 7/12/07, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <email@example.com> wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 3. After GCC 4.2.1 is released, we will renumber the branch to GCC 4.3.
> What would have been GCC 4.2.2 will instead be GCC 4.3.3, to try to
> emphasize the GPLv3 switch. The GCC mainline will then be GCC 4.4.
I find this surprising and a bit confusing! My first reaction (maybe not enough thought) is that most users don't care
much about GCC source code, only about its functionality (making an executable from C or C++ source code). I am not very
sure that a "minor" change on the GCC source code license should affect so significantly the version numbering.
I had the same reaction. A new major release of GCC implies new
features and other technical enhancements, not just a new license.
Just imagine the flood of user questions and complaints when they
download GCC 4.3, expecting to find their favorite new feature that
they were told would be in GCC 4.3, and "all I got was this crummy new
license." Shouldn't we at least have some carrot with this stick?
Could we ask the SC to reconsider the change in the GCC major version
numbering for GPLv3? Or, at the very least, explain why it is
important to change the major version number for a mere license
Why not just change the license on mainline for the GCC 4.3 release
(whenever it happens), and leave GCC 4.2 as the last release series