Slashdot Mirror
GCC 4.2.1 Released
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?"
How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Once more, Slashdot's editors demonstrate that they are here solely for adviews and not to provide "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters". The ECGS fork will be nothing like the current fork. ECGS was forked for technical/organisational reasons: GCC was being developed much like a closed-source program with a free licence, which resulted in a stagnating compiler and unhappy would-be contributors. ECGS should the superiority of the "bazaar"/open-source development method of the "cathedral"/closed-source method in this particular context. All of this is well-known information you can find just about anywhere on the web.
Given that GCC development will remain open, this fork cannot be compared. On the other hand, we do have another situation that might be considered similar: The X.org/XFree86 fork. XFree86 was developed under a free software licence, but with 4.4 this was changed to a non-free licence. X.org forked the most recent free version and has basically completely replaced XFree86.
But, of course, this is still not perfectly comparable. XFree86 was using a relatively closed development method, and the X.org fork's more open style saw it rejuvinated: And indeed, this was part of the purpose of the fork. A GPLv2 GCC fork will not see this sort of rejuvination, as GCC has already seen the benefit for it of an open method, and continues to use it. (See: The EGCS fork the article poster referred to.)
In addition, the XFree86 licence was widely regarded as being non-free and some major distributions (e.g. Debian, Fedora) considered it completely inappropriate for inclusion. It was made unilaterally without discussion without relevant stakeholders. The GPLv3, however, has had public draft releases and discussion including many major distributors and producers of free software. Although it removes certain freedoms distributors had with GPLv2 (which, largely, went completely against the spirit of the GPLv2), the GPLv3 has the agreement of the people needed to make it work. There will be basically top-down push for adoption as there was with XFree86/X.org.
My prediction: Any GPLv2 fork of GCC will be largely forgotten in a year or two.
Look out!
Smells like FUD.
Oh, will he be forking GCC? No? Then how is that relevant to the topic at hand?
Slagborr
The use of weasel words, speculation of "private discussions" (how would one in the public know the content of a private discussion without being a part of it himself?) and the use of the textbook definition of straw man by bringing up the unrelated fact that one fork have been successful in the past and implying that, because of that, one "revolt" is imminent, is nothing by an ill flamebait, in order to generate controversy and the unavoidable licensing flamewar that it will certainly ensue.
This is sad because Slashdot used to be a place where, when a new version of software were posted, the discussion were directed to the changelog and the new features, fixed bugs, and this particular article didn't even mentioned that. It was a cheap shot at GPLv3, a license that seems to have lots of people that dislikes it, people that aren't even affected by it in the first place. GPL doesn't cover use, only distribution.
Sad, sad, sad, this used to be a cool blog with real "news for nerds" but lately it seems more interested in generating polemic and the page views that accompany it.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing in my post shows any support (or lack of) for any of the mentioned licenses, nor discusses the their merit (or lack of). So keep me out of the flamewar.
Basically people who want to write non-GPL software oppose GPL3 ( and also people pushing DRM ). For everyone else ( people writing GPL software, and users who don't write software ), GPL3 is a good step towards protecting us from the oncoming legal onslaught from the commercial software world, headed my Microsoft.
References? The only grumblings I can see in the GCC mailing lists are about the version number change that accompanies the GPLv3 upgrade. A few developers feel that a license change is not a new feature so the first GPL version should be 4.2.2, not 4.3. And one developer who complains that not allowing backported patches to stay under GPLv2 will be a burdon to companies offering support for older versions (eg Novell, Xandros and Linspire).
No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.
- Linux distributors choosing to distribute GPLv3 binaries will be able to do so without changing what they're doing now.
- You don't understand GPLv3 and think others might be confused too.
None of this addresses the question: How does releasing GCC amount to shoveling the license down our throats?"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.
If you're of this opinion, why not just read the license? You might change your mind.
Having actual sources removes the Uncertainty and Doubt from FUD.
"...conditions you must meet in order to use the software ..."
GPL v2 and GPLv3 do not restrict you in anyway how you can use the software.
No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.
If you're of this opinion, why not just read the license? You might change your mind.
Why do you assume that anyone who doesn't like it hasn't read it?
I have read it (and based my last couple .sig's on it, even), and I find the Tivo section to make it sound very much like "You are free to use this however you want. Except for things we disagree with.". Which is really a very hollow sort of "freedom", regardless of how bad the "things we disagree with" are.
You are totally, completely free to _use_ a GPLv3 program for whatever you want, and you're even guaranteed to be able to do that on the device it came on, if any. Of course, if you want to distribute the program yourself, you have to give receivers all the same rights.
That doesn't sound like "you are free to use this however you want, except for things we disagree with" at all, to me.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
But that doesn't put actually any restrictions on me. I don't care one bit what Microsoft wants me to do or not to do.
Otherwise, here is how I can destroy the use of the gcc compiler on Redhat in two seconds:
I, gnasher719, hereby promise not to sue any Redhat Linux users for use of any patents that I own that are used in Redhat Linux, unless that Redhat Linux user uses gcc to compile anything.
Now Redhat Linux users can't use gcc anymore!
I hope you can see what's wrong with this argument. Exactly the same is wrong with your argument against gcc usage on Linspire.
"the new version really, really, sucks." ranks alongside such great arguments as "Your mum" and "Because I said so". That's probably why it was suggested that they read the licence.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Let me play devil's advocate. What if a company released a new compiler (probably based off an existing proprietary C compiler) and added/changed completely new language symantics. Then they could take any GPL software they like, modify it, and release the new version of the software with source code. The problem is, since they didn't release the compiler, no one could *ever* actually compile a new binary from the source!
That's exactly what Tivoization is trying to guard against. Only in this case, the hardware makers were using hardware hacks to make the code useless. Note that GPL3 doesn't dictate how you use the code. What it does say, if the binary you distribute, based on GPL code is singed (and that signature is required for the binary to function), then you have to include the key that it's signed with as the GPL source code! That's no different than GPL2 requiring you release all source and scripts needed to compile the source.
Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"?
Woah - TiVo isn't using that software, their customers are using the software. The FSF is telling Tivo, if you're giving our software to your users, you have to give them the ability to change it. If you just allow them to, but then make it impossible to use those changes, then that's taking advantage of a loophole, you should have known it was, and now we're fixing that.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
as a software developer you feel that the new version of GPL was not written with software developers in minds, and for software developers benefit.
The license was written with hackers and tinkerers in mind. It was designed specifically for our benefit, because it protects our ability to write and modify open source code on consumer hardware devices which employ open source code.
If that's not important to you personally, fine. But you should realize that as computer use shifts further and further from desktops to phones, pdas, and other highly proprietary platforms, there are a lot of free/open source developers who will appreciate the "rights" protected by GPLv3, even as they complain about it now.
A lot of us have read it and saying "it sux" is just our way of being polite.
Its a fuck-up. The gpl was originally about software, and trying to extend it to hardware is inappropriate. It means that GPLv3 code is cut off from a lot of applications, for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries; because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable. Nice way to hand a critical market to Microsoftie, where the blue screen of death is not just a metaphor.
There are other examples, if you care to do some research; we've commented on them before. The GPLv2 was sufficient to defang the Novell-MS deal, but people panicked. The GPLv3 is a political maneuver that plays right into Microsoft's hands. They would love all free software to move to GPLv3. They'd shit-stain their tidy-whities if it all forked to, say, a BSD license instead. Sun could, for example, merge linux and solaris. Linux with zfs would be an instant hit.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
If that's the case, then why do the protections only apply to "User Product"s? If Google wanted to use the exact same technique with their search appliance, the GPLv3 would allow it, because a Google search appliance isn't meant to be installed in the home. Why compromise here? It sure feels like, to me, a way for the FSF to stick it to TiVo without pissing off the larger corporations that invest lots of money into free software development. The new version of the GPL is more complex, and it's troublesome when some of that added complexity is devoted to targeting particular uses of software. I thought this was supposed to be about "freedom", but different rules for different players sure doesn't feel like "freedom" to me. That's why I think the GPLv2 is a better license.