Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com
Sat Jul 14 18:37:00 GMT 2007

Richard Kenner wrote:
>> One could of course just take a blanket view that everything on the
>> site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3 (note you
>> don't have to change file headers to achieve this, the file headers
>> have no particular legal significance in any case).
> Given the July 31 "deadline", that's essentially what's being done: any
> file with a date before August 1, 2007 is GPLv2 and any after is GPLv3.
> This is one of the reasons why I don't see the version number change as
> so significant.

This would be a desirable situation.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case.  If you
apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
becomes GPLv3.  (This is unless FSF agrees with Mark's proposal
to dual license patches.)

As I understand the current situation, knowing the version number
will not tell you whether the code is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv3.

Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077

More information about the Gcc mailing list