Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:08:37 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <20120621230530.GC575@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <CF.D3.12873.263F2EF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> References: <CF.D3.12873.263F2EF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:11:46AM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Snippet from Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
> > GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
> > giving back as the license requires. There was little to no way to
> > enforce the license, he decided to move to other license that
> > protects his work and let others use it was well with little to no
> > strings attached. He know uses the CDDL which is also an Open Source
> > License. He can give you many reasons as to why the GPLv3 is the
> > wrong way to go. I can ask him for these and other reasons at your
> > request.
>
> Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who
> want to better understand the licensing issues of GCC compared to
> Clang.
>
> That would help explain why FreeBSD is switching to Clang.
Related (perhaps somewhat indirectly):
Advancement Through License Simplicity
http://univacc.net/?page=license_simplicity
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120621230530.GC575>