Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Or ship as-is and fix the license for GCC 4.5. I haven't followed the
> legal discussion -- so maybe I'm being naive or I've missed it -- but
> I haven't seen anyone explaining why this is not an option.
I can see why that won't work. If there's a problem with the current
licence that would open a backdoor to proprietary plugins, and we ever release
the code under that licence, evaders will be able to maintain a fork under the
original licence no matter how we subsequently relicense it.
BTW, re your initial post ...
Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> This is the saddest thing that I have seen in GCC politics so far.
IMO if a few weeks delay to sort out a really complicated legal technicality
is the saddest thing you've seen so far, we can't be doing that badly.
cheers,
DaveK
