Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:23:19 +0300 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <4FE19687.80602@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201051250.23394@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%2BLmjjXNx31JW%2BgRTo3_KLYdYrqHC_w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200823060.71457@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <4FE189D9.4040404@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201051250.23394@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> >> The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under >> this license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making >> their own OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper >> for example. It would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3. > > not really understood this. > > -------- > if anyone commits any code under this > license into the tree > -------- > into what tree? gcc tree or FreeBSD tree? I was talking about FreeBSD sources here. > FreeBSD has it's own copy of gcc so any change in gcc doesn't > automatically change FreeBSD code and licencing. FreeBSD has old and abandoned copy of gcc, the last version available under GPLv2 license. >> FreeBSD is heading the right way: bringing BSD toolchain to the world >> and fixing world compilation with gcc46 from ports would give anyone a >> choice on which compiler to use keeping GPL out of tree. > > the right way is to use best performing tools as long as no law problems > exist. There can be different ways for selecting best tools. Someone needs better performance while other one state that stability is a must. For now clang is a choice for stability and not the performance. Yet due to the rapid development this is subject to change while gcc is not. Think of it like we are changing a car that shines for the one that can move. -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE19687.80602>