Re: RFH: GPLv3 and release version numbers

[Laurent GUERBY <laurent at guerby dot net>]

On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:21 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
> 
> > 	Let me try to stop some confusion and accusations right here.  RMS
> > *did not* request or specify GCC 4.3.3 following GCC 4.2.2.  That was a
> > proposal from a member of the GCC SC.  The numbering of the first GPLv3
> > release was not a requirement from RMS or the FSF.
> 
> I don't particularly have a dog in the version number fight.
> 
> I think it's potentially surprising to have a "bug fix release" contain
> a major licensing change -- whether or not it particularly affects
> users, it's certainly a big deal, as witnessed by the fact that it's at
> the top of the FSF's priority list!  But, if there's a clear consensus
> here, I'm fine with that.

I think it's useful to look at what other members of the free software
world are doing and if we take SAMBA they're bumping the version number:

http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/
"[...] To allow people to distinguish which Samba version is released
with the new GPLv3 license, we are updating our next version release
number. The next planned version release was to be 3.0.26, this will now
be renumbered so the GPLv3 version release will be 3.2.0.

To be clear, all versions of Samba numbered 3.2 and later will be under
the GPLv3, all versions of Samba numbered 3.0.x and before remain under
the GPLv2. [...]"

I don't know about other "big" projects (many projects don't have
branches), but there's some value for free software users about being
consistent across projects on this point.

Laurent