This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFH: GPLv3

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mitchell <> writes:

2. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last GPLv2 release.  The FSF will permit
backports from mainline to GCC 4.2.1, if necessary, to be downlicensed
to GPLv2, as part of that release.

I believe that we should make a clear statement with that release that any future backport from a later gcc release requires relicensing the changed files to be GPLv3 or later. I believe this is consistent with the two different licensing requirements, and I believe it is feasible if inconvenient for vendors who distribute patched gcc releases.

If I understand you, that means that backporting a fix from gcc-4.4 to gcc-3.4 would suddenly make everything in gcc-3.4 fall under GPLv3.

I understand that you may be talking about public branches, but
there are (many) people who are currently using and maintaining
previous releases.  The same rules would apply equally to private
backports of patches.

This would be chaotic.  Acme Co's version of gcc-3.4 might be GPLv2
while MegaCorp's gcc-3.4 might be GPLv3.

My personal preference would be to acknowledge that for our users
there is no significant difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3. And we
should acknowledge that people backporting patches from later releases
are already going to have to relicense to GPLv3.

That's going to stop all private development until corporate legal folks get into sync with GPLv3.

The only people who may be discomfited by that choice are distributors
of gcc who are unwilling to distribute code licensed under GPLv3.

And anyone using any past release.

Michael Eager
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]