Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:17 UTC, submitted by Oliver
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 257350
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-17
So should Google be forced to GPL the sources to GFS?
This is a good question, and one to which I do not have a ready answer. It is not clear from the plain language of the GPL license.
It gets a little hard to judge these cases!
Agreed, 100%. Another borderline case. I don't offer any judgement myself, either way, as I can't really work out if the GPL applies here or not.
Member since:2006-02-26
Agreed, 100%. Another borderline case. I don't offer any judgement myself, either way, as I can't really work out if the GPL applies here or not.
You've said it yourself here over and over again-- the GPL is a copyright license (even though the GPL3 may have meandered into contract law, but that's another topic), and copyright only covers distribution. The software, in this case, is not being distributed, so there is no requirement to release the source code. It's not a borderline case at all.
Member since:
2006-06-03
So should Google be forced to GPL the sources to GFS?
because it is (presumably) a Linux kernel module running on publically accesible servers. Clients who search using google, or use google maps are using the GFS drivers to access data. By your argument, that makes it subject to the redistribution terms of the GPL.
It gets a little hard to judge these cases!