Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:45:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200643490.71030@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20120620030854.GA15821@hemlock.hydra> References: <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de> <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at> <20120620030854.GA15821@hemlock.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> but not to be turned into closed source products. >> >> What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called >> "forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open >> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... > > Give him a break. His heart is in the right place, though his choice of GNU licence is nothing about freedom, it just says it is freedom. But what really is important for FreeBSD is if it can be used. IMHO nothing from GPLv3 prevents it, and it is no licence based reasons to use clang.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200643490.71030>