On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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.
And this is the legal concern raised about the current license? I thought the problem was that the license was too restraining... But if what you say here is the issue, then I understand the reasons better now. > 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. It's not a few weeks. It is months already. And who knows how much longer it can take. But you're right, there actually are sadder things... ;-) Gr. Steven
