From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4896 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2007 17:06:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 4888 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2007 17:06:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aquarius.hirmke.de (HELO calimero.vinschen.de) (217.91.18.234) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:06:54 +0000 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 00C536D47F9; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:06:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:06:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Changing top level files and include/ files over to GPLv3 Message-ID: <20070709170650.GP6851@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <9DB7619D-8F9F-4741-B968-D2000BD6F151@apple.com> <468EAFDA.1050800@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 On Jul 9 13:39, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jul 9, 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> At which point I wonder why someone would have problems upgrading the > >> license of an earlier GCC code base. Can anyone list any reasons why > >> this upgrade would be objectionable, considering that it was widely > >> (?) known that GCC (and any other FSF-owned code) would upgrade to > >> GPLv3 pretty much as soon as it was available? > > > I am not sure the customers of $X will appreciate a license change of > > this kind with a point release, > > The code was already GPLv2+. > > And then, any customer can still do whatever they could, beyond any > doubt, under GPLv2, and then some more: GPLv3 relaxes a number of > GPLv2 requirements, and clarifies a number of GPLv2 requirements to > make sure none of newly-invented restrictions are interpreted as not > covered by the "no further restrictions" wording. This isn't quite correct. v3 adds restrictions which were not present in v2. That's why linking v3 and v2-only stuff violates v2-only, but not v3. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Project Co-Leader Red Hat