This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> writes:
> Here's an alternative:
>
> Since copyright is owned by FSF, they (via the steering committee)
> can license them under different licenses.
>
> Patches applied to gcc-4.<gplv3> are licensed under GPLv3.
> Patches applied to previous versions are licensed under GPLv2.
Well, we've now seen Mark's proposal along those lines. It is
apparently a non-starter with the FSF.
> I think this is a fine working definition of chaotic.
I think that once legal teams are onboard with GPLv3, it won't be a
problem.
If they don't get onboard with GPLv3, then they are stuck with
previously released versions of gcc, and they will be forced to
develop any patches independently. That is not ideal but does not
seem to be avoidable. There are competing contradictory requirements.
The FSF owns the software, so they win. So it goes.
> In the face of chaos, most corporations are going to simply
> stop and wait for the maelstrom to subside.
Yes. From our point of view as free software developers, I believe
that will be not ideal, but acceptable. The maelstrom will subside.
It won't take more than a few months.
Ian