Fine.. as I said, what's a reasonable forum to discuss this on?
gnu.misc.discuss just doesn't cut it..
gnu-misc-discuss@ is the proper place, just ignore Terekhov.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:35:39PM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Ed S. Peschko wrote:
> >And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that
> >the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of
> >great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to
Ed S. Peschko wrote:
And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that
the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of
great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to
convey any sort of apprehension that you might have about such a split
"Ed S. Peschko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that
> the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of
> great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to
> convey any sort of apprehension that you
"Ed S. Peschko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And in any case, why should it be off-topic?
Regardless of how much it affects, us, it's off-topic *by definition*
in *this forum*. This isn't the right place to discuss such topics
because that's the way we want it to be.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:55:05PM -0800, Ed S. Peschko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3,
> > > staying
> > > at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussi
> And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that the
> possibility of your project being divided in two would be of great concern
> to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to convey any sort
> of apprehension that you might have about such a split to the group that
> > I'm sorry, but IMO this GPL change seems just a disaster waiting to
> > happen. Unless GPL3 is non-controversial (which it sounds like it is
> > not) it'll tear both your development team and your user community
> > in half, as well as probably get rid of a large part of your
> > corporate fund
> So I gather that the FSF has some sort of property-rights transfer
> document that developers sign in order to make their patches FSF property?
Correct.
> Also, I'm assuming that licenses are not able to be grand-fathered to old
> versions, so I'm assuming gcc's pre-gpl3 will always remain at g
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, staying
> > at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some
> > developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others deci
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3,
> > staying
> > at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some
> > developers decide they want to stay at 2 and oth
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Ed S. Peschko wrote:
My concern - and I'm sure I'm not the only one so concerned - is that
if gcc goes to version 3, linux distribution maintainers will not
choose
to go with the new version, or worse, some groups will choose to
remain
at gpl2 and others will go
>
> All,
>
> So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, staying
> at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some
> developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they want to
> go with 3?
We (developers/SC) don't have control over
All,
I'm curious what is to happen with gcc when the gpl version 3 is done.
Will new versions of gcc be automatically changed to use the new license,
or will gcc stay at 2, will there be discussion about any such change?
My concern - and I'm sure I'm not the only one so concerned - is that
if gc
14 matches
Mail list logo
