Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:17 UTC, submitted by Oliver
General Development 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."
Thread beginning with comment 257313
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Commercial use
by _LH_ on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Commercial use"
_LH_
Member since:
2005-07-20

Compatibility was broken by people who haven't used GPLv2 like released by the FSF but instead without the "or any later" language. So the people who have modified GPLv2 has explicitly stated that they don't want to be compatible with new versions of the GPL.


But now you're getting nihilistic. We live in a world where there are large code base licensed under v.2 exclusively. These include such as Linux kernel and Qt and organisations behind these projects have very clear reason to license their stuff this way (see my earlier post).

Now we get to the point. Those who change from 2 or later to 3 or later explicitly break compatibility with those vast code bases licensed under 2 only. And this is the problem. People forget the value of cooperation and helping each other and instead try to force feed their new license-of-choice.

This effectively kills some projects as there is no way for a poor little programmer working on a mash-up of Qt and lets say Samba to ever get this thing sorted out. Even he wants to he can't force Trolltech to switch to 2 and later or 3 only. And now this poor bastard finds himself in a situation where he is unable continue doing his thing only because some found something in the current world immoral.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not against GPL 3 per se but I think it foolish to cut compatibility with some of the greatest open source projects there are. And you have to admit that whose who break the compatibility here and now are those who change to 3 and later only.

Edited 2007-07-22 22:02

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Commercial use
by b3timmons on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:04 in reply to "RE[8]: Commercial use"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

But don't get me wrong. I'm not against GPL 3 per se but I think it foolish to cut compatibility with some of the greatest open source projects there are.

I am having trouble seeing the fairness of your comments. You start off by characterizing the FSF as "fundamentalists" who could "go berserk" and add use limitations to future versions of licenses that have only ever had distribution limitations, including GPLv3. The "or later" language is natural and logical to ensure compatibility among copyleft licenses. Why should the unwillingness of those of a relatively few projects who refuse to use such language count for more than the wish of those of relatively many projects who want to restore protection (among many other benefits) for their software that was compromised by loopholes in an old license amid a business climate of patent threats? Moreover, you implicitly assume that not upgrading the license would lead to lesser likelihood of forking within the project from those who wish to upgrade than the more typical converse case. Why should cooperation among projects ever matter to any one project as much as cooperation within the project itself?!

I am having trouble understanding how you are so quick to attribute malice or stupidity to those who simply seek the project integrity and kind of protection that the GPL was always supposed to encourage and provide. Oh, and yes, the GPL was always motivated by what is moral, so it is strange that you should be bothered by that motivation as people upgrade to simply another version.

Edited 2007-07-22 23:23

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[9]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:39 in reply to "RE[8]: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Those who change from 2 or later to 3 or later explicitly break compatibility with those vast code bases licensed under 2 only. And this is the problem. People forget the value of cooperation and helping each other and instead try to force feed their new license-of-choice.


People who move to v3 or later can use code from v2. It is people who insist on v2 only who are denying themselves access to V3 the code.

For what purpose would people want to stay with v2 only? Are you saying it is worthwhile to stick with v2 only, and deny yourself all that v3 code, just in order to allow Tivo to rip people off?

I just don't get this attitude at all.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[9]: Commercial use
by pinky on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 09:01 in reply to "RE[8]: Commercial use"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>We live in a world where there are large code base licensed under v.2 exclusively.

Really? I would say most GPL code is licensed under the GPL like released by the FSF -> with "or any later" language.

Large examples are:
(1) Linux, which doesn't really matter because nobody who writes Apps have to link directly against Linux. Linux is a quite monolithic program which hasn't large side effect (e.g. like libs) so it's no problem to stay with GPLv2 only.
(2) Software where one entity holds the copyright (e.g Qt). This is also no problem because the code can easily be relicensed.

So (1) is not really a problem and (2) can easily solved by the copyright holder otherwise the copyright holder from this code (e.g. Trolltech) have to explain their customers why they want to deny them to write GPLv3 code. It is their decision and so they have to take responsibility for it.
You can't cut of compatibility and than complain about others because you don't want to be compatible. It was your decision so now you are in charge of it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 13:14 in reply to "RE[9]: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

(2) can easily solved by the copyright holder otherwise the copyright holder from this code (e.g. Trolltech) have to explain their customers why they want to deny them to write GPLv3 code. It is their decision and so they have to take responsibility for it.


Why would Trolltech possibly object to GPL v3? Trolltech comply with the provisions of the GPL, and Trolltech don't have any desire to sue Linux users ... so why on earth would Trolltech not simply go along with GPL v3?

BTW, the largest single piece of any GNU/Linux distribution is the GNU software. GNU software is about 28% of the code in a typical GNU/Linux distribution, where the Linux kernel is about 3%.

The GNU foundation wrote the GPL v3 license text, so all of GNU software will go to GPL v3.

GNU GCC, which this article is about, was originally written by Stallman himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection

Edited 2007-07-23 13:19

Reply Parent Score: 3