GCC 4.2.1 Released 449
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?"
Fact lite submission (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:5, Funny)
There's this guy Linus [wikipedia.org], he's one. You may have heard of him. He's the guy who created git [wikipedia.org] and some other minor projects.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your options... (b) is what they will probably have to do, which will once again make life worse for everyone, including the 1% who want to tinker. (c) will not help since the tinkerers will then start complaining that they are not being allowed to buy thier Tivo (since leasing is apparently also evil). (a) jus
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 purpo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPLv2 already does this! It says, "you can use this how you want, except several things, one of which is modifying -> compiling -> distributing it without the modified source."
Which is really a very hollow sort of "freedom", regardless of how bad the "things we disagree with" are.
If you say so. I think it's a prefectly reasonable level of freedom. If you want 100% freedom, go BSD-licenc
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously: It is quite unlikely that anyone is running gcc on a TiVo, and even more unlikely that anyone is running a modified gcc on a TiVo. And I can't see anyone creating a DRM encumbered version of gcc. Now if Microsoft decided to co-operate with Sony and create the most horrible DRM ever thought of for the new Microsoft-Sony-Dr.Evil Music Player, then there is nothing at all that would stop them from using a future gcc compiler under GPL V. 3 to do this.
Now
EGCS link also unclear (Score:2)
Re:EGCS link also unclear (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably anyone who thinks it's a terribly bad idea to change licences midstream through the life of a product. They should have done what Samba is doing and declare a clean break at a major version change. It would be less confusing and far more clearcut to say that gcc 4.2.x is GPL v2 and 4.4.x is GPL3.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you can't relicense GPL code to BSD without owning the copyright, which in this case the FSF has. So Apple can't do that.
Troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you say IS the case for bison, however, but that's because it embeds a pile of parser code in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Old news submission (Score:2)
The threat... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt about that.
As seen with the XFree86 project, it takes considerable disgruntlement to create a serious fork. And even if it happens, the original project may stay alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Release_histo ry [wikipedia.org] shows that XFree86 still exists, even if X.Org is the dominant X-Server these days. So I'm sure there will be an official GCC version under GPLv3.
It is, however, possible that a well-maintai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The pity is that it might not be possible to merge the forks down the road. That used to be one of the strengths of the GPL, the ability to merge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are these people considering all descenting views to be "whining" on all subjects or just on this subject? Are the 'these people' knowledgable in the field?
In other words, are you yourself generalizing?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 wit
Re:The threat... (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the GCC mailing list. I haven't heard or seen any grumbling. Nothing I'd call significant. The most grumbling I've read is on how to deal with the branching and labeling/versioning which always seems to be a GCC issue; it's a major release number with no new features, when major release number imply new features... Read this [gnu.org]. There are closed branches of GCC, ones that vendors may add custom support for their hardware to, stuff like that, those people will have to change things. There was some discussion about how you license patches, purely an academic discussion on licensing though. Like I said, I haven't seen any grumbling and it simply doesn't affect end-users.
I also read LKML and I don't think that that is terribly significant, Linus brings up some points that seem to go un-addressed elsewhere. There is also some disagreement about how something like Linux goes through the process of being recopyrighted, you see there are people that are dead that have contributed large amounts of code. With Linux in particular, nobody was requested to re-assign their copyright to anyone like they are with GCC and a lot GNU projects. Really the only serious disagreement I've seen anywhere is from companies that exploit free software and are worried that they might have to share their substandard source code or rewrite the free components that make up the heart of their applications. Some of the hacks from the magazines are trying to stir the pot a little but that's it. It's unfortunate, some of the folks that really benefit the most from free software, folks that have products that exist because free software makes it possible for them to afford to make software, are now trying to attack and undermine the very software they depend upon.
Re:The threat... (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL v2 and GPLv3 do not restrict you in anyway how you can use the software.
Dual License (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might want to consult with a lawyer about your own project's licenses, as well. It seems to me what you re
Re:Dual License (Score:4, Interesting)
I call bull. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, user number 561269, would you please elaborate on the subject and cite any credible source supporting your view that a major contributor to GCC is considering to fork and "have it their way"? Your posting thoroughly lacks that kind of information right now, and therefore I think it deserves being tagged bogus or useless.
Thanks in advance for clearing this up.
- c0l0
(who's growing tired of all this anti-GPLv3-FUD swellig so much recently fast)
Re:I call bull. (Score:4, Interesting)
LLVM (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
clang source code (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely different (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Completely different (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Smells like FUD.
The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowadays (Score:5, Insightful)
The use of weasel words [wikipedia.org], 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada (Score:2)
This article is not about technical issues. As far as I know, there is no significant
evolution in action (Score:4, Interesting)
If the GPL v2 objections are unfounded or astroturfing, then the GPL v2 forks will die.
I think the grumbling will blow over; I don't see any serious problems with the GPL v3. In fact, the fact that GPL v3 is compatible with more open source licenses seems like a big advantage.
Maybe not a problem really... (Score:4, Informative)
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...)
GPL v2, v3 or *BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am certainly not a lawyer, but MS has a ton of lawyers that seem to have become experts in the GPL arena and they seem to have little fear of GPL v2, but v3 seems to have them concerned. It seems that if developers want to stick with v2, then they may as well go all the way to the FreeBSD license. v3 is the future of free and open source projects that want to remain free in both senses until MS gets brave enough to sue over some vague patents. But if they can get enough partners like Linspire and Novell, they will have crippled much of the spirit that drives opensource. I plan on supporting companies that are standing up to the MS bullying in whatever ways I can.
Re: (Score:2)
Please could you explain why I couldn't use the gcc compilers on a box running Linspire for development?
In reality, this whole "patent agreement" is just a lot of hot air. Microsoft just agreed not to sue a very small subset of all Linux users. The other 90+ percent of Linux
Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The general consensus however is this doesn't effect your average user of GCC, only those developing pro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tom
Possibly, but not legal ones (Score:5, Interesting)
Since I am strongly opposed to GPLv3 and anything that uses it, I am not going to upgrade my gcc any further than 4.2.1, which I'll probably do today. This means that uSTL, and my other five projects on SourceForge, may have problems compiling on later gcc releases, even though I will not intentionally put any incompatibilities in my code. Not being able to predict the future, I don't know whether these problems would be minor ones or major ones, but I do know that unless they expose some fundamental problem with my code, I will reject any bugs related to them and state explicitly that any gcc > 4.2.1 is not supported and never will be.
Now, you probably wouldn't care about this. After all, I only had a few thousand downloads - a minute fraction of the developers in the world. And you might say "oh, who needs this guy's code anyway?" But I have a feeling I'm not the only one, and I do occasionally contribute to projects other than my own. Perhaps you don't care if you lose my skills and the skills of all those other developers, but I suspect that they do all add up to quite a bit, and while you might not notice it at first, the GPLv3 camp might get lonelier and emptier as time passes.
Seen nothing of this. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Call all /. lawers (or not) (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
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*.
Re:Call all /. lawers (or not) (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Great, that solves that then (since I won't be redistributing GCC at all, merely the binaries it generates).
>It seems to me that in the civil rights/privacy/witch-hunt departments we're
A (Fruit) Fly in the Ointment? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone care to speculate on how Apple might react to gcc going GPL3, perhaps they may actually fork it themselves...
Grumbling (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Just my 2 cents (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said all this GPL3, tivo this tivo that stuff is confusing the hell out of me. I release my plugins free to anyone using the applications they are designed for, I don't however release the source code. You can call me lazy all you want and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you have no problem. If you link against a lib, check the license. Most libs are BSD or LGPL and permit linking without requiring you to release your source.
> I'm halfway tempted to switch my development to a Mac
What compiler do you think Apples XCode uses?
> if things keep going the way they are though I might just have to start looking at another platform.
I'm witness to the awesome power of FUD.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My not knowning this is from my lack of knowledge with Apple so forgive me for not knowing. If I at some time do decide to switch platforms I will have to read up more about each one and the pro's and con's that each have.
> I'm witness to the awesome power of FUD.
This has nothing to do with FUD, am I wrong for disagreeing with the way the FSF is handling things as of late? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and mine just so happens to be that if
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No you're not. The GPLv4 explicitly disallows you from having any opinion on how the FSF works or you lose your right to have an opinion.
Re:Just my 2 cents (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Who is disagreeing with the license change? (Score:2)
Patent protection + internationalisation = good (Score:2)
WTF - claim of fork has no substance (Score:3, Insightful)
On what grounds did Slashdot say this is true???
Binutils (Score:5, Informative)
duh (Score:3, Insightful)
GPLv4? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the FSF have the trademark on GNU Public License? What is the third party called it something else, but declared it to be a newer version of the GNU Public License?
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose that a lot of free software authors feel that the FSF is being a little heavy handed. In fairness, it's hard to see how (after consultations lasting more than a year) that the foundation could have handled this better. All the same, there are inevitably going to be people who are not comfortable with the new licence. Given a choice of accept v3 or start a fork, it's perhaps inevitable that people who have invested a lot of effort in GNU projects are going to regard the licence as an imposition.
The new licence was always going to be divisive, although in the light of the MS-Novell pact, I think the benefits will be worthwhile in the long run. But that doesn't mean that devs on large projects like GCC don't have a valid point.
The trouble is that there's nothing now to be done about it, but to see how the dice fall.
meanwhile, the evidence is missing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true, and it would be foolish to assume that we heading for the sort of apocalyptic sundering of the community prophesied by GPLv3 skeptics. On the other hand, I think it's undeniable that the community is divided over the issue.
How serious the objections are, and how large the dissenting camp... that remains to be seen. If the FSF consultancy works as intended there should be li
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 li
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:4, Insightful)
- 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?Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tell that to Novell. :-)
...but even Linux distributors who haven't drunk the MS Kool-aid will be faced with a "choice" between sticking with current versions of key products (with whatever bugs and vulnerabilities come to light), maintaining their own forks, or being bound by the terms of GPLv3.
Darn right!
H
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 leg
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure that this is the case? It would seem to me that they cannot change the text in the COPYING file, and thus the only thing they can do is distribute as "GPLv2 or later" themselves.
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
main.c:
#include stuff
#__INSERT__REAL__CODE__HERE
main(){
call_real_code();
exit 0;
}
The compiler is then hacked to insert the actual code which does the work where it sees #__INSERT__REAL__CODE__HERE, but this version of the compiler is never distributed.
Voila! You can distribute the above file under GPL and it doesn't do someone who wants to modify the code any good because they need
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was going to be compatible, it would have to be the exact same license.
One feature of GPL is that it claims that the entire program has to be distributed under whatever terms, with no additional restrictions. So if GPLv3 has less restrictions that GPLv2, v3 code wouldn't be allowed to be distributed under v2. If it had more restrictions, then v2 code wouldn't be allowed to be distributed und
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the code is not in the main gcc, I think there is no legal thing that hinders you from merging the stuff.