Daniel Berlin wrote:
2. Where is the pushback by the SC onto the FSF?
Why haven't we given them a hard deadline, or even any deadline at all?
It's clear when they have no deadlines, they take forever to get
anything done. After all, if they are allowed to not prioritize it and
have no incentive to get their ass in gear and meet a deadline, what
exactly did we expect to happen other than it not getting done in a
reasonable amount of time?
Considering this could drag on for an indeterminate period of time, I
think we should do something along the lines Dan suggest.
I have no problem envisioning this scenario:
- FSF sends the new license out in June
- "WAIT!!" screams someone, "this has another problem, look!!!"
- Back to the FSF we go for a ruling and waiting for more rewording,
restarting the cycle
- GCC 4.4 eventually ships in 2010.
If the license were ready in a reasonable time frame, I understand
holding off to pick up the new one. I think we've already waited a
reasonable time. If the changes aren't forthcoming in short order, I
would much rather see us say "Fine. Since there is no sign of the
license becoming available, and the existing license worked for 4.3, and
4.4 won't have plugins, we're going with the existing license for 4.4"
I'd even be OK saying that our intention is to pick up the new license
when it is ready, and if its ready when we cut GCC 4.4.1, we will pick
it up for that. So advertise in advance that GCC 4.4.0 will have the old
license, but it will change ASAP. If that is an issue for you as a
consumer of GCC, don't use GCC 4.4.0.
We do need to start moving forward, and reverting to stage 3 doesn't
seem like a step forward to me.
Andrew
