Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:15:58 -0500 From: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <496BDD3E.1000507@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <496B46D6.6060403@math.missouri.edu> References: <20090112094429.GA87628@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <496B46D6.6060403@math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As for Michel's point that the results of the compilation are not > covered by GPL - this seems to be stated explicitly in the GPLv3 license. Which is my question. Why do we need update the compiler when the license shouldn't matter? Has anyone asked the FSF about this issue anyway? Does the FSF claim that the output of the compiler becomes "free" software? > > Stephen > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Eitan Adler "Security is increased by designing for the way humans actually behave." -Jakob Nielsen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?496BDD3E.1000507>