Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:16:31 -0400 From: Sean Cavanaugh <millenia2000@hotmail.com> To: "'Wojciech Puchar'" <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, "'Polytropon'" <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: 'FreeBSD Questions' <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Why Clang Message-ID: <BAY165-ds1109C34B3FC025DD20C9ADCAFF0@phx.gbl> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206192154110.98802@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> 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> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206192154110.98802@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc > soon. > I would as one of the driving forces of the change was to replace GPL licensed code in FreeBSD core with more permissive licensed code. This helps to remove a massive legal encumberment for a lot of developers who no longer have to worry how their BSD licensed code has to be treated if its compiled thru a GPL compiler.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BAY165-ds1109C34B3FC025DD20C9ADCAFF0>