Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
If they don't get onboard with GPLv3, then they are stuck with previously released versions of gcc, and they will be forced to develop any patches independently. That is not ideal but does not seem to be avoidable. There are competing contradictory requirements. The FSF owns the software, so they win. So it goes.
Seems absolutely avoidable, IMO. I'm not exactly sure what the actual requirement are, but I don't see that they need to be contradictory. With flexibility comes adoption of the GPLv3. With dogma and inflexibility comes resistance. The current plan applies the GPLv3 not just to the future releases, but also indirectly to past releases. That may or may not have been anticipated, but it looks like the result. That's at odds with what I understand to be the FSF's public statements about GPLv3. The rationale that "FSF owns the code" so "FSF dictates the rules" is one of the least appealing aspects of this. [I'll put away my soap box. For now.] -- Michael Eager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
