On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > > >> I too think that it would be a bad idea to switch the 4.1 branch to > >> GPLv3, > > > > Can you please elabortate why? > > I think it's a bad idea to change the license on a release branch in > deep maintenance mode. That would be a surprise to users. The idea of > such branches has always been that you could get the latest bits and > just pick up some bug fixes. GPLv3 is not a bug fix in the usual sense. > > I argued against changing the license for 4.2.x for the same reasons, > but was overruled by RMS. But, there, for all practical purposes, we > had to make a new release. It would be in keeping with our past > practice to let 4.1.x slowly wither away at this point. > > That said, I'm not going to argue this too forcefully. If someone wants > to do all the work to update everything to GPLv3 and do a release, so be > it. I would just ask that the GPLv3-ness of the release be made > aggressively obvious.
You mean like calling it gcc 4.4.0? :P Honestly let's not offer this to someone who likes to do the work. Richard.
