Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:23 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu>, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <20090113222023.GA51810@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <496D0FE5.1040903@gmail.com> References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <496D0FE5.1040903@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 05:04:21PM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: > > Smells like FUD to me. In all of my reading, I have never seen such a > > claim. There may be some GPLv3 issues, but I seriously doubt this is > > one. > Which leads to my next question: why not upgrade? Given the number of FreeBSD using companies who are completely banned the presence of GPLv3 source from their sites, improvements would have to be extremely compelling and there would have to be a straight forward way to produce snapshots of the src tree with out any GPLv3 components as well as a simple way to build said source tree with a non-GPLv3 compiler. -- Brooks --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFJbROmXY6L6fI4GtQRAkVSAKCbVAFwdEWKupP/ngb1W0+eeeZPrgCgu1t7 cfekxxY9nPBCeJr34qYMMpw= =VRpa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090113222023.GA51810>