RFH: GPLv3

Richard Guenther richard.guenther@gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 19:30:00 GMT 2007


On 7/12/07, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> 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.

Richard.



More information about the Gcc mailing list