Fatal oversight

Posted Jul 30, 2009 16:18 UTC (Thu) by jordanb (guest, #45668)
In reply to: Fatal oversight by bronson
Parent article: A new GCC runtime library license snag?

> If the problem were truly that the GPLv2 uses imprecise terminology then all the FSF has to do is release a GPL2.1 with language bugfixes,

They did release an update to the GPL fixing language ambiguities. The copyright holders in question chose not to move to it, either because they had a belief that it 'overreached' or they had removed the 'or later version' clause and now find it too much bother to do a license change.

Maybe a "2.1" would placate some who feel that GPLv3 "overreached" (I doubt it) but it would do nothing to address the second case. The vast majority of the software that's still under GPLv2 would not move to a newer license even if the changes were minor.

> or even just an addendum describing language intent.

This would not be binding on copyright holders not a party to the 'addendum'. (Which is to say, it would only apply to the FSF, which would make it totally irrelevant because all the FSF code is under GPLv3.)