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?"
The threat... (Score:2, Insightful)
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"?
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.
How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Smells like FUD.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The threat... (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:Fact lite submission (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
WTF - claim of fork has no substance (Score:3, Insightful)
On what grounds did Slashdot say this is true???
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:3, Insightful)
(* LibC is, of course, LGPL which is less "viral" than GPL - but I haven't seen much debate about v3 of LGPL...)
Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:3, Insightful)
No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.
Re:Just my 2 cents (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: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:Just my 2 cents (Score:1, Insightful)
You have to keep track of the licenses of all libraries/tools you use on Windows as well.
In this case you're OK as long as you just use the compiler for compiling your code (linking against libc/libc++) as (from what I understand) only the compiler will be put under GPL3.
If you want to use freely available libraries/tools you have to accept their license, otherwise just don't use it, simple really.
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:My problem with GPLv3 (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 under v3.
Yes. This is why you should pay attention to what you agree to.
Yeah, the only "spirit" that stays the same between them is the spirit of the FSF. The spirit of a license necessarily must be contained entirely within that license, and the contents of v2 and v3 are very different (from "share and share alike" to "share, and you must share everything").
They asked for people to use the "or any later version" clause specifically so they wouldn't have to do this. Using that clause or not is a judgement call, as to whether you trust the FSF with your license (personally, I don't).
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:meanwhile, the evidence is missing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The threat... (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL v2 and GPLv3 do not restrict you in anyway how you can use the software.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:3, Insightful)
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:why does anybody care? (Score:2, Insightful)
What you're dong is akin to distributing the
That's not to say you can't pull that trick more subtly. You might need some compiler extensions which are independant of your program, but all the logic for your program is there.
There are multiple ways to circumvent the GPL, but that's not one of them.
(And no, I'm not going to list them. I like the FSF)
Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing (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 little in the way of serious opposition. On the other hand, if they've placed Stallman's political agenda ahead of the needs of the community (as some have suggested) then we may be in for a rocky ride.
Either way, we'll find out soon enough.
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.
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:2, 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.
Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"? Many ways to use software (almost anything including the word "firmware", for example) necessarily involve redistributing it.
(Also of interest is that the FSF's own "Free Software Definition" [fsf.org] demands freedom of (re)distribution. Therefore I consider GPLv3 to be not only non-free, but hypocritical.)
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fact lite submission (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-licence, but don't expect not to have corporate freeloaders.
duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (Score:1, Insightful)
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: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:A (Fruit) Fly in the Ointment? (Score:2, 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: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:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? (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: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.
clang source code (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fact lite submission (Score:2, Insightful)
"You must make source available" == "You may not distribute this with devices that make the availability of source code irrelevant."
If that source cannot be used, it's cold comfort that vendors distribute it.
Re:So why can't the USER put it back in? (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) just doesn't make sense.. their 'model' in this case is 'not get sued into bankruptcy'.
And yes, they used to be able to sell Tivo before that had features like this, and they got threatened for doing it. They didn't wake up one day and say 'hey! let us screw our users and take away a really popular feature for no reason besides feeling like jerks!'.. they woke up one day and said 'if we keep this feature, we very well might not be able to sell ANY Tivos again, so sacrifice one feature to save the rest'.
I also find it amusing that the people who want to tinker with their Tivo are failing to support Neuro's DVR. So instead of rewarding a company that is trying to appeal to the FSF people, they are punishing a company that isn't 'doing enough'.
And the FSF wonder why embedded companies don't like them. People aren't willing to vote with their time or their wallets and help companies that do get it.. all they do is whine and make life difficult for companies that are giving back but still close their device.
Re:Possibly, but not legal ones (Score:1, Insightful)
Please make sure to put that in big bold letters on your web page, so people know they have to migrate or fork your project.
This weekend I have to look for an STL implementation with bounds checking. Now I know not to bother looking at yours. Thanks.
Re:Bogus. Poser. (Score:2, Insightful)
You're holding them hostage. If they rely on your uSTL, they may be prevented from moving to a later version of gcc. You, on the other hand, are refusing to move because you dislike GPLv3, not because you are going to have any problems whatsoever with using a GPLv3ed gcc.
Given that, I'd only use uSTL if I was willing to maintain it myself, and that would be the reaction of most people.
You're delusional. Hundreds of millions of people use Microsoft products without worrying about the license, and Microsoft licenses are more restrictive than any GPL version, and they're more likely to have an effect than the gcc license. What makes you think there's going to be three people (including you) who will boycott new gcc versions because they don't like the license?
No, they're expected to have at least an occasional desire to contribute, in exchange for getting excellent software. Alternatively, they're expected to improve the software when it's in their own interests. The FSF is quite insistent on the ability to sell GPLed software; if you can't use software commercially, it isn't free by their standards.
So, why are you maintaining a free software project (or, if you prefer, open source)? Are you being paid? If so, did you consult with your employers/customers? If not, why are you intent on being a "penniless slave"?