Joel Sherrill joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com
Fri Jul 13 14:30:00 GMT 2007

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> wrote:
>> So you typically would wait till the license change was definite.
> It seems to me that it would be saner to not only keep up with the
> developments of the license, but also get one's major customers aware
> of the upcoming changes, not creating false expectations as to
> licensing issues.  We shouldn't hold back the upgrade just because
> some vendors *might* have failed to keep up on the legal front.

I don't think the FSF should delay at all in moving its
distributions to GPLv3.  Do whatever version numbering
is required to make it clear to users. 

The FSF can even go so far as to release no further GPLv2
patches.  That is their right and they have no obligation
to provide further support for older compilers.

OTOH there are a number of non-FSF entities that
have committed morally and/or legally to providing
long-term support for gcc directly and/or OSes that ship
with a gcc.  I really believe these people need guidance
from the FSF on what to do. 

--joel sherrill

More information about the Gcc mailing list