Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:58:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206192154110.98802@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <CAH3a3KWKNF5Bt-8=KgtbMh=rV6GfUO7OaeE6-SutxkcRe8cG3Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191953280.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed? > > As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is > often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3 > libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler > will have - according to the license - to be released as > v3 too. This word: "MAYBE" is most crucial here. wouldn't it be just simplest solution to ask GNU leader for clearing it out? i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc soon.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206192154110.98802>