Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GCC 4.2.1 Released

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the licensing-with-drama dept.

larry bagina writes "GCC 4.2.1 was released 4 days ago. Although this minor update would otherwise be insignificant, it will be the final GPL v2 release; all future releases will be GPL v3. Some key contributors are grumbling over this change and have privately discussed a fork to stay as GPL v2. The last time GCC forked (EGCS), the FSF conceded defeat. How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?"

4 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. Binutils by Asmodai · · Score: 5, Informative

    And no one noticed yet that binutils already went to GPLv3?

    --
    Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
  2. Re:Call all /. lawers (or not) by kocsonya · · Score: 5, Informative

    > I -do- however have a portion of code that I keep locked up for a commercial application, if I start using a GPL v3 GCC will I be putting myself into peril?

    No, you won't. You want to *use* gcc, not distribute it. The GPL explicitely states that it deals with the redistribution of the program and it puts no restriction on its use. If you want to distribute GCC itsels, then the GPL restricts you. If you distribute code compiled with GCC, the GPL has nothing to do with you.

    > Incidently, I'm not in the US, but well... sort of, I'm in Australia, which is almost as good as another US state *sigh*.

    It seems to me that in the civil rights/privacy/witch-hunt departments we're getting a lead on the mothership :-(

  3. Re:Just my 2 cents by tokul · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fault Windows all you want but the worries you have with licenses on Windows is slightly less then Linux, notice I SLIGHTLY easier. I'm halfway tempted to switch my development to a Mac and dump my Linux support to not worry about it ever again. This is pretty sad since I ENJOY Linux, I've been running nothing but Linux the past 5 years. I have better things to do then worry "Opps, shit did I link with something that requires I release the source".
    Then don't use GPL-licensed code in your proprietary software. If you use third party code, you don't own it and you must check copyrights. With GPL you must follow copyright laws or you must follow GPL. Without GPL you still must follow copyright laws.

    Like I have said in all my previous posts I like Linux, I like it a lot, but I'm sorry to say I don't view the FSF as the best people representing Linux.

    First F in FSF stands for Free. Your proprietary software is not free.

    Even if you don't like GPL, you still can use Linux. You only can't distribute Linux with your proprietary modifications.

  4. Re:EGCS link also unclear by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mostly EGCS happened because Richard Kenner, while widely recognized as an excellent compiler engineer, wasn't that good a maintainer. In particular, the Cygnus people felt that their changes to the C++ front-end was too long to get in to the mainline tree. The egcs branch tried to "modernize" the development process with open mailing lists and anonymous cvs access, as opposed to the traditional ("Cathedral") approach.

    Officially the egcs was an experimental branch of gcc, and there was never a feud between the Cygnus guys between egcs, and the FSF. The FSF could thus make egcs the official gcc branch without losing face, the experiment had simply been a success.

    The "link" to egcs is simply because the submitter is a troll. That gcc would change to GPL3 has been known and accepted since the whole GPL3 process started, and those developers who cared have responded by getting involved in the GPL3 process. The rare protests have been from non-developers only, and have seem more motivated by misguided Linus worship than by anything else.