From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24011 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2007 17:25:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 23986 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2007 17:25:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:25:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508612AA564; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fjcL+QFJNC1G; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7A12AA558; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8EDDFE7B54; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Nick Clifton Cc: Mark Kettenis , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Changing top level files and include/ files over to GPLv3 Message-ID: <20070709172758.GA3822@adacore.com> References: <200707061825.l66IPDiI029226@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070706183355.GA29794@caradoc.them.org> <20070706193817.GA2364@adacore.com> <20070706205514.GA3923@caradoc.them.org> <4692042A.9090408@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4692042A.9090408@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00153.txt.bz2 > Sorry - the conversion was not made over the weekend. Mark Mitchell has > asked that the change over be held off until the discussion over what > happens to new patches (to GPLv3 sources) that want to be backported to > old branches (under GPLv2). [...] > If you can afford to wait then it would probably be a good thing. (On > the assumption that releasing under the GPLv3 is better than releasing > under GPLv2. At least for FSF projects anyway). I think we can wait; I can't see anything that would require us to release no matter what. Given the timeframe I heard that RMS gave us to transition to GPLv3, I also think it's more important that we wait. This will actually give me some time to work on some details that I originally decided to postpone for the next release. -- Joel