Thu Jul 12 17:21:00 GMT 2007
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.
(650) 331-3385 x713
More information about the Gcc