On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > The fact that these non-free tools are not based on gcc are a > testament to how proprietary software developers cannot plug into gcc, > and how clang is fostering non-free software.
What does it matter whether clang fosters non-free software if clang *also* fosters free software? Indeed, non-free software inspires a lot of free software, anyway. Apparently, gcc isn't fostering much of anything, except for a desire to replace it with llvm/clang. Where there is the least friction, there is the most freedom.
