This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
- From: Rob Brown <rob at cobbleware dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:11:50 +1200
- Subject: Re: RFH: GPLv3
Robert Dewar wrote:
>One could of course just take a blanket view that everything
>on the site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3
>(note you don't have to change file headers to achieve this,
>the file headers have no particular legal significance in
According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html, the file headers
are precisely the place to make the license grant.
>That at least would be clean, and anyone concerned with
>accepting GPLv3 stuff would simply know that as of this
>date and time, they should no longer download ANYTHING
>from the entire gnu.org site.
>That's actually not so terrible, you lose some users
>temporarily, but at least there is no misunderstanding.
There would be gross misunderstanding! Placing everything on gnu.org under
GPLv3 does nothing to affect all of its mirrors. So if I download
gcc-4.2.0.tar.bz2 from ftp.gnu.org then it's GPLv3, but if I download it
from any of the mirrors then it's GPLv2.
Surely the aim of the process should be to eliminate "gotchas" as much as
possible. Everyone has the responsibility to verify that they have a
license before using someone else's code. How could I, as the recipient of
a file which says "GPLv2" etc at the top, know that it was downloaded from
gnu.org and is actually really GPLv3?