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?"
Should we just accept that as a fait accompli? Isn't the FSF meant to be working for us rather than staying in their ivory tower dictating to us what we want?
Anyone that dislikes the viral aspects of GPLv3. Unlike GPLv2, any code compiled with GCC licensed under GPLv3 must in turn by GPL v3 code. This is a BIG change from the way it used to be and makes it practically useless to other projects such as *BSD or even MacOS X's development tools. On the plus side, there is a rumor that Apple will be leading the drive to fork GCC into a BSD licensed fork so that the viral aspects of the GPL will no longer encumber it.
It's hard to see what people could complain about in terms of GCC.
Not if they didn't bother to read it, and just accepted Linus' ignorant rants on faith.
Please elaborate upon how "you must make source available" is the same as "you may not distribute this with devices with property X".
Yeah, hi, settle down, zealot. Great grandparent asked who was opposing. Grandparent gave one very large example of someone who used to be a GPL fanatic. Don't get all huffy just because that one example doesn't happen to apply to GPL. It is still germane that one of the biggest GPL zealots in history now sees the enormous problems that v3 is prepared to cause, and is ducking as fast as he can.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Completely offtopic, but if you were any further on his dick you'd have to be a wrinkle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"