From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 20 06:54:33 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C481065672
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:54:33 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6245C8FC0C
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:54:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5K6sUpQ071568;
	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:54:30 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id
	q5K6sTiH071565; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:54:29 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:54:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGwOe2bSwAp5jfaQstYY+LmjjXNx31JW+gRTo3_KLYdYrqHC_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200823060.71457@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>
	<CAGwOe2bSwAp5jfaQstYY+LmjjXNx31JW+gRTo3_KLYdYrqHC_w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
	(wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]);
	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:54:30 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>,
	FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Why Clang
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:54:33 -0000

> Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
> under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
> implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
> exception[2] for this.
>
this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway DragonFly BSD developers 
(which is BSD licenced) don't have any problems and just use latest gcc.

> I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea.

I am saying this. Moving to worse compiler is a definitely bad idea.

This is not a place of politics. As GPLv3 doesn't prevent it from being 
used in FreeBSD and is better - it should be used. It's simple.

If clang would be better - it should be used.

> Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if we compile
> the base system with a gpl v3 gcc?
>
there are none probably.

Before actually testing it i believed we move to clang because it is 
better compiler AND and supported a move. Good lesson to test first and 
don't believe, even with FreeBSD.