RFH: GPLv3

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jul 15, 2007, Brooks Moses <brooks.moses@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> Thus, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that
> distributing a GCC with some file headers saying "GPLv2 or later" and
> some saying "GPLv3 or later" is violating the license.

Why would it be?  They're evidently compatible, since you can release
them all under GPLv3+.

Similarly, it's never been a copyright violation that we ship say
libiberty/bsearch.c under the modified BSD license along with a whole
lot of GPLv2+ code.

> Thus, I think it's reasonably critical that _all_ file headers be
> updated, quickly, to match the state of intended license for the files
> that include them.

This is nice for informative purposes, but unless there are changes in
them that are GPLv3+ only while the file still says GPLv2+, the change
is likely irrelevant.  FWIW, IANAL.

-- 
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}