Alexandre Oliva aoliva@redhat.com
Mon Jul 16 15:18:00 GMT 2007

On Jul 13, 2007, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:

> 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. 

Long-term support shouldn't be a problem; you can keep on supporting
it under GPLv3.

Now, if someone committed to offering support under one particular
version of the GPL, even though GCC has always been released under
GPLv#+, and GPLv3 has been in the radar for at least 2 years now, this
may have been an unfortunate commitment.  I suppose the FSF might be
willing to help, even though AFAICT it's under no obligation to do so.

I suggest getting in touch with licensing@gnu.org if/when you need
guidance.  As for permission to use a patch under GPLv2, I can't tell
whether it would be easier to get permission for use under GPLv2 from
the original contributor or from the FSF.  I suppose it would depend
on the contributor.

I shall point out that I don't speak for the FSF, and I don't even
speak for FSFLA in this or even in most matters.

Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}

More information about the Gcc mailing list