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.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
