GCC 4.2.1 has been released, the last release of the GNU Compiler Collection under the GPL v2. "GCC 4.2.1 is a bug-fix release, containing fixes for regressions in GCC 4.2.0 relative to previous GCC releases. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last release of GCC covered by version 2 of the GNU General Public License. All future releases will be released under GPL version 3."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
The GPL "license" is effectively a conditionaly waiver of the owner's funadmental rights under copyright. If the GPL were ever declared invalid, the situation would revert to standard copyright, where no-one would have the right to redistribute the product.
This simple construction makes the GPL far stronger than the EULAs used in traditional proprietary software, which rely on licensing law, and are hobbled by the fact that you often have to buy the product before you can view the license, which breaches the basics of contract law, regardless of refund schemes.
Consequently it is unlikely any court will declare the GPL invalid, or that any organisation will try to do so. The basic simplicity of its construction lends it enormous legal strength.
Furthermore, the FSF is in no way trying to "take over" Microsoft: frankly that's a lot of astonishingly paranoid nonsense. The additional restriction to the GPL is that if you copy and paste GPL code when creating your own product, and you patent your additions, you must distribute the result under the GPL, and waive all rights to your patents on those additions, so that other users can copy and paste your code just as easily as you copy and pasted from the original author's code[1].
The issue for Novell really only comes into play if they knowingly mix GPL code and patented code together. Of course, if Microsoft has informed them of the patents, and they've accepted those patents' validity as part of the contract, then they will find themselves in an awkward position, effectively unable to redistribute GPLv3 products... until they create patches to work around the patent issues. If anything, this should help open-source software work around patents, insofar as possible in the current, uncertain patent climate
[1] Note there is always the possibility that you could ask the original author to relicense his code under a different license (e.g. commercial one), should you wish to avoid these constraints. And if they refuse, well then you just write everything from scratch yourself, instead of copy and pasting other peoples' work.
RE[3]: Novell / Microsoft deal
Member since:2006-06-03
There is no way that anyone in the OSS community would, or could acquire Microsoft Closed-source technologies in this manner. The problem is that the Microsoft patent-deal does not, cover the GPLv3. As more projects switch to the v3, the patent-deal has less and less effect.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE OSS COMMUNITY STEALING IP!
Member since:2007-02-17
There is no way that GPL v3 is an attack on Microsoft, or that there is any intent whatsoever to take Microsoft to court.
If, however, Microsoft try to take GNU/Linux to court, then GPL v3 affords a legal defense against such bullying by Microsoft. Microsoft are giving out vouchers for other people's copyrighted works ... specifically, Microsoft are giving out vouchers fro GNU software ... and FSF holds the copyright for GNU software.
Under copyright law, Microsoft need permission from the copyright holder (not Novell, but the actual copyright holder) to give out vouchers for GNU software.
The copyright holders of GNU software (namely, the FSF) have given such permission to anyone who abides by the terms of the GPL license. Outside of abiding by the terms of the GPL license, there is simply no other permission given.
Either Microsoft abide by the terms of the GPL license (in which case they have the required-by-law permissions for their vouchers), or they do not (in which case they have no permissions). If Microsoft have no permission to give out vouchers for someone else's copyrighted work, then Microsoft are in violation of copyright law. It really is that simple.
Going to court and somehow getting the GPL declared legally void will not somehow magically provide Microsoft with permission to violate copyright law. If the GPL is somehow decalred legally void, Microsoft will still have no permissions for their vouchers. What Microsoft would have to do is get copyright law decalred legally void ... do you really believe Microsoft can do that or would want to do that? Get real.
Edited 2007-07-22 23:49
Member since:2005-08-26
But the vouchers does NOT entitle you to any GPLv3 code.
They entitle you to a support agreement for SLED, exluding any and all parts that are under GPLv3.
Novell is free to include additional parts if they want to, but that is entirely up to them.
There is no need to take it all to court, unless you think MS can be seen as a distributor of GPLv3 code through Novell adding parts that MS explicitly exclude from the offer.
Member since:2005-09-01
Well, having GPL v3 tested in court right off wouldn't hurt it. I presume this could be one of it's advantages. It may be cynical but if FSF wants to quickly promote it they should start some GPL3 related lawsuits in number of EU countries and USA. The more high profile they are, the better.
Edited 2007-07-23 08:13
Member since:
2007-02-22
That it is be infringing is the FSF's party line, of course. However, they're on shaky legal ground with it, and pretty much trying to go hundreds of years of western law.
It's doubtful that they will try to 'acquire' Microsoft's stuff this way. If they did try to take this to court, they have a 50/50 chance (or greater) of having the GPL v3 declared legally void.