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

On 7/12/07, Mark Mitchell <> wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

>>> 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.
> Incorrect.  It only matters for distributors, not users.

> Again, I am just the messenger here.  I would like to see a different
> approach, but what could that be?

I have suggested to RMS that the FSF allow downlicensing of backports of
GPLv3 code that met two condition: (1) the backport fixed a bug, rather
than added a feature, and (2) the backport was less than 1000 lines of
code.  The point of (2) is to prevent abuse of (1).  If you claim that
some great new feature is a bug fix, you still lose because it's too
big.  So, you can't avoid GPLv3 by just "backporting" forever; the new
GPLv3 features will pull you forward.

I also suggested that GCC the 4.2.x branch be permitted to remain GPLv2.
 But, RMS has said that GCC 4.2.1 must be the last release under GPLv2,
and that it happen before the end of July (which was the plan all
along).  I don't think it's fruitful to discuss any changes to this
particular item (e.g., delaying GCC 4.2.1, releasing GCC 4.2.2 as GPLv2,
etc.); I think that RMS has made his decision.

As the 4.1 branch, while we don't expect any new releases from it, is still open for bugfixes, can we as GCC community decide to only accept dual-licensed (so, fine for GPL v2) patches to it? Otherwise we should definitely close this branch.


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