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 257362
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Commercial use"
lemur2
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.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[9]: Commercial use
by cb_osn on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 03:03 in reply to "RE[8]: Commercial use"
cb_osn 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.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE[10]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 03:49 in reply to "RE[9]: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


Fair enough. I'm perpared to go with this reasoning.

The only caveat: GPL v3 now applies to activities beyond pure and plain distribution of the code.

But you are probably right, it doesn't seem to apply in this instance.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2