From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 25 13:21:27 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C5E68D for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:21:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@theravensnest.org) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE1B9AD for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:21:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c120.sec.cl.cam.ac.uk (c120.sec.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.18.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0PDLJnA078084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:21:20 GMT (envelope-from theraven@theravensnest.org) Subject: Re: Removing default build of gcc Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:21:19 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1B345827-76F0-49C7-8D54-82866938E0A1@theravensnest.org> References: <74D8E686-3679-46F2-8A08-4CF5DFC020CA@FreeBSD.org> <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> To: Konstantin Belousov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:21:27 -0000 On 25 Jan 2013, at 11:31, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > To clarify: there is no plans to not ship any GPLed code for 10.x. This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at = DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised. If this is = no longer a goal, then that is very sad, because we have currently a = window in which a lot of potential downstream users are looking for a = GPL-free stack and are put off FreeBSD and towards proprietary solutions = because we still require GPL'd code for a working base system. If we = put off this goal for another two years, we are likely to lose a lot of = potential corporate contributors, who will invest in in-house and = proprietary systems instead. > Instead, there are still plans to ship working 10.x. I don't believe that these are contradictory goals and would certainly = not ever prefer a non-working system to a working one. =20 Indeed, in many cases the alternative is a non-working system. For = example, the debugger that we ship doesn't understand DWARF4 generated = by any modern compiler (including gcc or clang). David=