This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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


David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:

> >>>>> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> 
> Ian> To pile on after my earlier message, I would say that the change in
> Ian> license does not matter at all, not even a tiny bit, for gcc *users*.
> Ian> It only matters for gcc *distributors*.  And I think the vastly
> Ian> smaller population of gcc distributors can be reached by appropriate
> Ian> use of documentation and announcements.
> 
> 	I completely agree that the license change does not matter in
> reality, but reality is different than perception.  Members of the GCC SC
> have received feedback from users who are concerned.

We should address that concern as much as we can, but to me it does
not follow that we should change gcc versioning in a peculiar way.  I
think that will cause more confusion than it will solve.

> 	Some end users need approval from their legal department for a
> change of license of their software.  This means that the users may need
> legal approval for a bug fix because of the license change.

As far as I can see, that is going to be true whether or not we bump
the release number.  If you can explain otherwise, I would love to
hear it.

> 	Also, for example see the way that Samba is handling the license
> change.

Samba is simply bumping to 3.2.0.  They aren't moving from 3.0.26 to
3.2.27.

If you want to release gcc 4.2.2, and then release gcc 4.3.0 from the
gcc 4.2 branch, and make mainline gcc the eventual gcc 4.4.0, I'm on
board with that.  That is easy enough to understand and not too
difficult to implement.  What I'm disagreeing with is moving from gcc
4.2.2 to gcc 4.3.3.

Ian


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