Brooks Moses wrote:
Diego Novillo wrote:
On 7/12/07 11:43 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
My personal preference would be to acknowledge that for our users
there is no significant difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
I agree with this. I think renaming 4.2.2 to 4.3.3 will result in
lots of unnecessary confusion.
Likewise. As was suggested on IRC, we could append a letter to the
version number (say 4.2.2G) or something distinctive, but don't skip
version numbers in such an odd way.
I would very much agree with this, if it's possible. 4.2.2_GPLv3, perhaps?
I very much agree with this.
Also (and I am too young to know) how (and when and if) was the GPLv1 -> GPLv2 transition handled? Or is GCC older than
GPLv1 (I am just asking, maybe past history could help).
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net | mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***
