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?"

Maybe not a problem really...

[flibble]

To be honest from my reading of the gcc mailing list, most of the complaints seemed to be focused around the fact that the original plan (which was up for discussion at least) was to change the numbering system so they went straight from 4.2.1 to 4.3.3 (lots of 3's to ram the point home of course) which would be confusing to most people (and probably to a few packaging systems as well). With what would be 4.3 going to 4.4.

The big problem is that RMS seems to want all patches put into SVN after July 31st to be GPL3+ no matter what, even on release branches which automatically pollutes them. This then causes problems for corporate users who may then have to wait for a legal department evaluation on the license...

I don't think many people would object if the GPLv3+ restriction was for 4.3/4.4+ really. (well as long as RMS doesn't go mad and revoke the linking exception for libgcc anyway...)

Re:The threat...

[xquark]

I don't know "who" is grumbling, but just looking at the C++ and C side of things, those
languages's syntax to RTL conversions are written by a small group of people (I believe 4-5)
under the auspices of something called "code sourcery" of which some of them are employed
by a company called EDG.

Hence I believe if the majority of people from this group were to revolt and stay with gpl2
then a fork occurring would be inevitable and the FSF wouldn't have a leg to stand on, they
would have to concede as they did with EGCS.

That said no one from code sourcery has made a comment about gpl3 ,positive or negative.
We'll just have to wait and see.

Seen nothing of this.

[eddy]

I follow the GCC list (you know, where all significant contributors hang around), and the only thing I've seen discussed is what should happen to the old branches when GCC goes GPLv3, and if the change should come with a version change. The thread starts here [gnu.org].

Me thinks someone is on crack.

Re:Completely different

[bjourne]

There is no fork of gcc happening. The story submitter just made things up.

Re:Completely different

[Anonymous Coward]

For xfree86 there was another reason. If you ever hacked with its code you'll probably have played with something known as "imake". The sole thinking about that utility makes me (and a lot other people) puke. Needless to say, the xfree86 people were very happy with it. That alone could be a reason for forking.

Binutils

[Asmodai]

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

Re:Call all /. lawers (or not)

[kocsonya]

> 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 :-(

Re:Just my 2 cents

[tokul]

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.

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

LLVM

[Per Abrahamsen]

Actually, LLVM is (or was, I'm not sure what the current status is) a candidate for a new middle/backend for GCC.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no such exemption for gcc in my debian install, just good old GPL with some notes that some bits might be under other licenses.

Most likely because you are looking at the wrong place (I guess you just looked at /usr/share/doc/gcc/copyright and jumped to this conclusion). In /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.2/copyright on my unstable system, it says clearly:

gcc/libgcc2.c (source for libgcc) has the following addition:
        In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License,
        the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to
        link the compiled version of this file into combinations with
        other programs, and to distribute those combinations without any
        restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public
        License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they
        cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked
        into a combine executable.)

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ciggieposeur]

However, you missed the bit about all the developers who followed FSF's advice about the "or later" clause and now have no choice but to allow their work to be distributed under GPLv3.

And you "missed the part" where developers who wrote their own code under the "V2 or later" clause can decide for themselves whether or not to move their own projects to "V3 or later" or whatever license they want.

Only developers who signed over their copyright to FSF are being "forced" to move to "V3 or later". Since FSF legally owns that own code, good on them for moving their code to their new license.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[itsdapead]

And you "missed the part" where developers who wrote their own code under the "V2 or later" clause can decide for themselves whether or not to move their own projects to "V3 or later" or whatever license they want.

...but there is still nothing they can do to stop others re-distributing the "v2 or later" version of the code under GPLv3. If they happen to agree with the substantial new restrictions the FSF has added, that's fine - but if they don't agree, if they feel that these restrictions break the FSF's assurance that future versions of GPL would be in the same spirit as v2, then that is just tough.

The idea that others could re-distribute your work provided they did not impose additional restrictions on the recipients is central to the GPL. FSF is effectively saying "its OK when we do it for the greater good" line.

Can FSF force everybody to use GPLv3 for future releases of their project? No. Are they in a position to create an uphill struggle for developers who want to stick to GPLv2? Yes.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[itsdapead]

Thats the libraries, not the compiler itself.

If you re-distribute (a future GPLv3 version of) the compiler (or, I think, the libraries in a reusable form rather than just a program linked to them) you will be agreeing to the GPLv3 (since nothing else gives you permission to re-distribute that compiler) although that doesn't mean the GPLv3 extends to the whole distro. This will affect (amongst others) the makers of Linux distributions and Apple (OSX comes with GCC).

Also, although the Linux kernel isn't linked with glibc as such, there are chunks of code in it acknowledged as "hand optimised from glibc" and suchlike - which probably doesn't come under the exemption. Now, obviously, this comes from the LGPL2 version of libc, so that is not an issue until and unless important patches to libc appear under GPL3 and the kernel devs want to incorporate them. Not a big deal - but if you want to find some way to apply GPLv3 retrospectively to Microsoft, be careful what you wish for!

Re:Fact lite submission

[stinerman]

Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"?

Actually that isn't what it says. It says you may use this software for whatever purpose you like, but you have to make sure the users of the software have these specific rights. If that fucks with your business model of restricting the rights of your users, then balls to you. Equivalently, I could say that the GPLv2 sucks because Microsoft can't use such software for their purposes, namely using the software in a proprietary program.

What Tivo et al. wanted to do was use the software but not give the users of the software under GPLv2 the freedoms they were supposed to have. Sure, you could see the code, but you couldn't further modify the code and install it on your Tivo. This reflected an imperfection (in the eyes of the FSF) in the GPLv2.

Suppose you release something using the GPLv2. I take it, modify it, and redistribute it but I put the source code in a secretly devised file format that no one but me can read, encrypt it, or in any way obfuscate it. Sure, I'm technically releasing the source code, but no one can do anything with it. Your software might as well have been released under a BSD-style license.

The entire scenario might be fine with you; I don't know your view on software licenses. If you don't like GPLv3, then simply don't use it. No one is forcing you to do so. Tivo and the like will have to either bite the bullet or start heavily investing in hacking the BSD userspace (or maintain old versions of the GNU tools).

Re:"conceded defeat"?

[dtremenak]

EGCS became the official "GCC" for version 2.95. The EGCS bazaar-style development model was adopted and the EGCS maintainers became the GCC maintainers. So, I'd say "conceded defeat" is pretty accurate.

Re:Cell Binaries?

[lederhosen]

I think the vanilla gcc can only make use of the PPC core, I am *not sure* about this however. A version of gcc can be downloaded from "Barcelona supercomputer something" and is able to compile both for the PPC core as well as for the vector cores. The PPC part can be compiled to both 32 bit and 64 bit memory model.

If the code is not in the main gcc, I think there is no legal thing that hinders you from merging the stuff.