Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:41:11 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> 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: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:15:58 EST." <496BDD3E.1000507@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:15:58 -0500 > From: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > > As for Michel's point that the results of the compilation are not > > covered by GPL - this seems to be stated explicitly in the GPLv3 license. > Which is my question. Why do we need update the compiler when the > license shouldn't matter? > Has anyone asked the FSF about this issue anyway? Does the FSF claim > that the output of the compiler becomes "free" software? 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. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090113044111.134EC1CC0B>