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 want to > > go with 3? > > We (developers/SC) don't have control over this, the FSF has the control. > When the FSF says move over to GPLv3 we will, no questions. > All GNU projects which are copyrighted by the FSF will be the same: glibc, > bintuils, gdb, etc.
Ok, 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? If not, how would you force compliance with individual patches from various contributors who want to stay at version2? Or would you only accept patches from people who are happy with version3? 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 gpl2. Which means the big likelihood is that gcc/binutils/etc. will fork. 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 anyone from the FSF read this list, and if so, what do they think about this line of argument? Ed
