Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> 2. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last GPLv2 release. The FSF will permit > >> backports from mainline to GCC 4.2.1, if necessary, to be downlicensed > >> to GPLv2, as part of that release. > > I believe that we should make a clear statement with that release > > that > > any future backport from a later gcc release requires relicensing the > > changed files to be GPLv3 or later. I believe this is consistent with > > the two different licensing requirements, and I believe it is feasible > > if inconvenient for vendors who distribute patched gcc releases. > > If I understand you, that means that backporting a fix from gcc-4.4 > to gcc-3.4 would suddenly make everything in gcc-3.4 fall under GPLv3. > > I understand that you may be talking about public branches, but > there are (many) people who are currently using and maintaining > previous releases. The same rules would apply equally to private > backports of patches. > > This would be chaotic. Acme Co's version of gcc-3.4 might be GPLv2 > while MegaCorp's gcc-3.4 might be GPLv3.
Your understanding of what I am saying is correct. I agree that this is not ideal. However, I do not see an alternative. And you didn't propose one. I encourage you to think of one. That said, I don't really agree with your claim that having some versions of gcc 3.4 under GPLv2 and some under GPLv3 will be "chaotic." For gcc users, the licenses simply don't differ significantly. > > My personal preference would be to acknowledge that for our users > > there is no significant difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3. And we > > should acknowledge that people backporting patches from later releases > > are already going to have to relicense to GPLv3. > > That's going to stop all private development until corporate legal > folks get into sync with GPLv3. Correct, for people who distribute gcc. > > 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? Ian
