Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the > problem exactly? I am pretty sure that > > a) Apple has been distributing GPL'd binaries with OSX. I bet they > were built with XCode.
GPL-2.0. And of course Apple is not bound by the conditions of its own licenses. > b) Apple has a band of lawyers that ensure that they stay within the > constraints of the license. > > (see also > https://curius.de/blog/13-betriebssysteme/open-source/354-wenn-lizenzen-zur-huerde-werden-macos-und-die-gpl > , in German). > > If Apple and their lawyers think it is fine to redistribute GPL > binaries made with XCode, then we should be fine too. They don't distribute stuff under GPL-3.0, like newer versions of GCC. And we are not worrying about heeding the GPL but about heeding the XCode license. > Why does LilyPond need still need GCC these days? Currently there is a C++ incompatibility with Clang that's pretty hard to get around. But that's not really relevant regarding GUB operation in connection with XCode. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
