All,
I'm curious what is to happen with gcc when the gpl version 3 is done.
Will new versions of gcc be automatically changed to use the new license,
or will gcc stay at 2, will there be discussion about any such change?
My concern - and I'm sure I'm not the only one so concerned
All,
So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, staying
at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some
developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they want to
go with 3?
We (developers/SC) don't have control over this,
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Ed S. Peschko wrote:
My concern - and I'm sure I'm not the only one so concerned - is that
if gcc goes to version 3, linux distribution maintainers will not
choose
to go with the new version, or worse, some groups will choose to
remain
at gpl2 and others will go
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
All,
So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3,
staying
at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some
developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
All,
So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, staying
at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some
developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they
So I gather that the FSF has some sort of property-rights transfer
document that developers sign in order to make their patches FSF property?
Correct.
Also, I'm assuming that licenses are not able to be grand-fathered to old
versions, so I'm assuming gcc's pre-gpl3 will always remain at
I'm sorry, but IMO this GPL change seems just a disaster waiting to
happen. Unless GPL3 is non-controversial (which it sounds like it is
not) it'll tear both your development team and your user community
in half, as well as probably get rid of a large part of your
corporate funding. Does
And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that the
possibility of your project being divided in two would be of great concern
to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to convey any sort
of apprehension that you might have about such a split to the group that
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:55:05PM -0800, Ed S. Peschko wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
All,
So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3,
staying
at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens
Ed S. Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And in any case, why should it be off-topic?
Regardless of how much it affects, us, it's off-topic *by definition*
in *this forum*. This isn't the right place to discuss such topics
because that's the way we want it to be.
Ed S. Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that
the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of
great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to
convey any sort of apprehension that you might
Ed S. Peschko wrote:
And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that
the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of
great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to
convey any sort of apprehension that you might have about such a split
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:35:39PM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
Ed S. Peschko wrote:
And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that
the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of
great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to
Fine.. as I said, what's a reasonable forum to discuss this on?
gnu.misc.discuss just doesn't cut it..
gnu-misc-discuss@ is the proper place, just ignore Terekhov.
14 matches
Mail list logo
