On 3/19/08, Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't heard anything that changes my opinion, I still think we should
> relicense the 4.1 branch and do one last release before closing it.
>
> Am I alone here, or does anyone else agree with me? :-/
FWIW, I vote on releasing another vers
From: "Mark Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
My understanding is that *users* of GCC are not impacted by the license
change.
Some users certainly are impacted by the license change -- there are in
fact quite a few companies that disallow their users using any GPLv3
softw
Dave Korn wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote on 17 March 2008 12:00:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:27:17AM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Eric Botcazou wrote on :
>>>
> fixincludes/fixincl.x changed to GPLv3 on 4.1 branch a month ago.
By accident I presume?
>>>
>>> As an epiphenonmenal side-ef
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote on :
>
>
> > Jakub Jelinek wrote on 17 March 2008 12:00:
>
>
> > > The fixincl.x change on 4.1 branch should be IMNSHO reverted.
> >
>
> > I tend to agree. I'll revert this change under the own-patches rule
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
My understanding is that *users* of GCC are not impacted by the license
change.
Some users certainly are impacted by the license change -- there are in
fact quite a few companies that disallow their users using any GPLv3
software!
I think you're right that GPLv3 has
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 02:41:18PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> My understanding is that *users* of GCC are not impacted by the license
> change. When users compile their code, they only care about the runtime
> licenses as written into the GPL+exception clauses. These pieces of text
> are stil
> My understanding is that *users* of GCC are not impacted by the license
> change. When users compile their code, they only care about the runtime
> licenses as written into the GPL+exception clauses.
You mean they only *should* care about that. But in practice, many
corporate legal departmen
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
> >> I too think that it would be a bad idea to switch the 4.1 branch to
> >> GPLv3,
> >
> > Can you please elabortate why?
>
> I think it's a bad idea to change the license on a release branch in
> deep maintenance mode. That wo
Dave Korn wrote on :
> Jakub Jelinek wrote on 17 March 2008 12:00:
> > The fixincl.x change on 4.1 branch should be IMNSHO reverted.
>
> I tend to agree. I'll revert this change under the own-patches rule.
Done: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01004.html
Apologies for the i
Jakub Jelinek wrote on 17 March 2008 12:00:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:27:17AM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> > Eric Botcazou wrote on :
> >
> > > > fixincludes/fixincl.x changed to GPLv3 on 4.1 branch a month ago.
> > >
> > > By accident I presume?
> >
> >
> > As an epiphenonmenal side-effect
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:27:17AM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote on :
>
> > > fixincludes/fixincl.x changed to GPLv3 on 4.1 branch a month ago.
> >
> > By accident I presume?
>
>
> As an epiphenonmenal side-effect of being regenerated with the latest
> version of autogen rathe
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
> >> I too think that it would be a bad idea to switch the 4.1 branch to
> >> GPLv3,
> >
> > Can you please elabortate why?
>
> I think it's a bad idea to change the license on a release branch
Eric Botcazou wrote on :
> > fixincludes/fixincl.x changed to GPLv3 on 4.1 branch a month ago.
>
> By accident I presume?
As an epiphenonmenal side-effect of being regenerated with the latest
version of autogen rather than an older one. It could always be reverted
and/or re-regenerated with
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
I too think that it would be a bad idea to switch the 4.1 branch to
GPLv3,
Can you please elabortate why?
I think it's a bad idea to change the license on a release branch in
deep maintenance mode. That would be a surprise to users. The idea of
such branches has al
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> However there is a class of users who don't get their compiler from
> distributors, but who also want the safety of using official releases and
> not some random svn checkout. These users are missing one year's worth of
> bugfixes. They may not want to
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >> I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
> >> volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
> >
> > I strongly object to moving the 4.1 brach to GPLv3.
>
> I too think that it would be a bad ide
NightStrike wrote:
> What exactly is the downside to upgrading the license? I'm not
> familiar with the implications of doing so.
As I understand it, the concern is that many distros use the 4.1 branch
as the base for their main gcc system compiler. If suddenly the branch
gets upgraded to GPLv3
On 3/16/08, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >> I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
> >> volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
> >
> > I strongly object to moving the 4.1 brach to GPLv3.
>
> I too think that it would be
Richard Guenther wrote:
I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
I strongly object to moving the 4.1 brach to GPLv3.
I too think that it would be a bad idea to switch the 4.1 branch to
GPLv3, and, therefore, I think
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I understand and can support (up to a point) the desire of distributors to
> > continue working within GPLv2 and I know that's why the 4.1 branch is in
> > this situation. However IMHO this position is in tension with
On 3/15/08, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>
> > On 3/15/08, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
> > > volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
> >
> > How compl
On 3/16/08, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I understand and can support (up to a point) the desire of distributors to
> > continue working within GPLv2 and I know that's why the 4.1 branch is in
> > this situation. However IMHO this position is in tension with the
> > interests of us
> I understand and can support (up to a point) the desire of distributors to
> continue working within GPLv2 and I know that's why the 4.1 branch is in
> this situation. However IMHO this position is in tension with the
> interests of users who don't get gcc from distributors (think
> non-linux-gn
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I think we agreed to _not_ move the 4.1 branch to GPLv3.
>
> FWIW that was my understanding as well.
>
> > So, if the FSF says we may not release as GPLv2 then we should not do
> > a 4.1.3 release. The branch is simply open as 4.1 is widely adopted
>
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, NightStrike wrote:
> On 3/15/08, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
> > volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
>
> How complicated is the task?
It's not complicated, but perhaps it is tediou
Kaveh Ghazi wrote:
From: "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
I strongly object to moving the 4.1 brach to GPLv3.
Richard.
Because... ?
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi
I thought every
From: "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
I strongly object to moving the 4.1 brach to GPLv3.
Richard.
Because... ?
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi
> If there is too much confusion about this (unset) policy to keep 4.1 GPLv2
> I propose to close the branch and branch a gcc-4_1-gplv2-branch off the
> top.
My vague recollection from the last GCC summit is that there was no plan to
move the 4.1 branch to GPLv3 and that everyone was OK with this
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > fixincludes/fixincl.x changed to GPLv3 on 4.1 branch a month ago.
>
> By accident I presume?
If there is too much confusion about this (unset) policy to keep 4.1 GPLv2
I propose to close the branch and branch a gcc-4_1-
> fixincludes/fixincl.x changed to GPLv3 on 4.1 branch a month ago.
By accident I presume?
--
Eric Botcazou
> I think we agreed to _not_ move the 4.1 branch to GPLv3.
FWIW that was my understanding as well.
> So, if the FSF says we may not release as GPLv2 then we should not do
> a 4.1.3 release. The branch is simply open as 4.1 is widely adopted
> and distributors ship from the top of the branch and
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I think we agreed to _not_ move the 4.1 branch to GPLv3. So, if
fixincludes/fixincl.x changed to GPLv3 on 4.1 branch a month ago.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >> > Do we still want to keep this b
On 3/15/08, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support the final-release-then-close approach. But can we get a
> volunteer to convert that branch to GPLv3... ?
How complicated is the task?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
> > >
> > >
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >> > Do we still want to keep this b
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
> >
> > Looking at the changes that were made in the last
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
> >
> > Looking at the changes that were made in the last
"Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
>>
>> Looking at the changes that were made in the last three months still,
>
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
>
> Looking at the changes that were made in the last three months still,
> it seems the branch is still surprisingly alive, so
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
Looking at the changes that were made in the last three months still,
it seems the branch is still surprisingly alive, so it may not yet be
the time to close it. Personally I don't have a preference either w
On 3 Mar 2008 22:40:21 -, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Snapshot gcc-4.1-20080303 is now available on
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20080303/
> and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
>
> This snapshot has been generated
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20080303 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20080303/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
44 matches
Mail list logo
