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> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200823060.71457@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <CAGwOe2bSwAp5jfaQstYY%2BLmjjXNx31JW%2BgRTo3_KLYdYrqHC_w@mail.gmail.com> 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%2BLmjjXNx31JW%2BgRTo3_KLYdYrqHC_w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200823060.71457>