Joseph S. Myers wrote: > Is the full wording of a sample copyright/license header that should go in > all affected GCC source files available?
I will check on this. I think I may have something from the FSF about that; if not, we'll figure out what to do. > Do I understand correctly that all FSF-copyright files (more than ten > lines long) distributed by GCC that go into runtime libraries used by > GCC-compiled code, except those shared with outside projects such as glibc > and Classpath (but including e.g. the non-Classpath files in libjava, and > those files in libiberty that presently have license exceptions), should > use the new wording? I don't know about libjava, but certainly libstdc++, libgcc, libgomp, and so forth should get the new exception. > (But that e.g. Makefiles building the libraries > should use GPLv3+ without any exception, and tm.h headers should not have > the exception even though they provide a few macros for libgcc.) Yes, except that I think tm.h headers should have the exception too, if they are used in libgcc. > Will the transition to use GPLv3+exception need to be made on release > branches before any more releases are made from them (so that if anyone > should volunteer to the SC to make any further 4.2 releases, before the > point at which I propose to close 4.2 branch in the absence of such a > volunteer, they will need to ensure the transition patch is backported)? We should just update the licenses on the trunk. The change from GPLv2 to GPLv3 in the midst of the 4.2.x release cycle was confusing to people. I see no reason to do that again. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
