On Jul 15, 2007, Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thus, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that > distributing a GCC with some file headers saying "GPLv2 or later" and > some saying "GPLv3 or later" is violating the license.
Why would it be? They're evidently compatible, since you can release them all under GPLv3+. Similarly, it's never been a copyright violation that we ship say libiberty/bsearch.c under the modified BSD license along with a whole lot of GPLv2+ code. > Thus, I think it's reasonably critical that _all_ file headers be > updated, quickly, to match the state of intended license for the files > that include them. This is nice for informative purposes, but unless there are changes in them that are GPLv3+ only while the file still says GPLv2+, the change is likely irrelevant. FWIW, IANAL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
