On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > What really annoys me about this whole situation is this: I think no > one presently argues that the GPLv2 prevents people from distributing > pre-built binaries for proprietary operating systems. I can take > Hotspot (a component of OpenJDK which is GPLv2-only), compile it with > Microsoft Visual Studio, and distribute the result. But I suddenly > can't ship pre-built binaries, as a free software distribution, > because I happen to have upgraded the system compiler past GCC 4.2, > thus got the new GPLv3+ license for libgcc, and can't link GPLv2-only > Hotspot against that anymore. This can't be right, can it?
well, yes and no. By design GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only,
so this is "right" in the sense that it works as intended. It's also a
major fuckup for some GPLv2-only users (as you just described), which
as a result made *me* like+trust the FSF and the GPL less.
(And which then also resulted in me choosing GPLv2-only over GPLv2 or GPLv3
more often.)
By now I also think these "or any future version" clauses are… brave.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
