David Edelsohn wrote: > Let me try to stop some confusion and accusations right here. RMS > *did not* request or specify GCC 4.3.3 following GCC 4.2.2. That was a > proposal from a member of the GCC SC. The numbering of the first GPLv3 > release was not a requirement from RMS or the FSF.
I don't particularly have a dog in the version number fight. I think it's potentially surprising to have a "bug fix release" contain a major licensing change -- whether or not it particularly affects users, it's certainly a big deal, as witnessed by the fact that it's at the top of the FSF's priority list! But, if there's a clear consensus here, I'm fine with that. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
