RFH: GPLv3

[Mark Mitchell]

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.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713