|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
If rms wasn't so focused, the greedo corps would
have us all locked up in proprietary code. Yes.
They would. Look at Oracle. The GPL is the single
license that looks at how corps really roll and
tries to deal with it in a pragmatic way to limit
how bad they can be and succeed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
The license used by LLVM does help it gain support, but the main advantage is
less about the license, and more about being well designed for current
developments in compiler software. The reason for this particular difference
with GCC is mostly because LLVM is newer, and designed specifically for new
development.
Assuming GCC does re-license their code to BSD style tomorrow, I doubt it will
significantly gain any new contributors. Instead, most likely, the best parts of
GCC will get integrated into LLVM for better performance and compatibility
(those that have not already been cloned yet that is :p), and many more
developers will start using LLVM ;).
Another thing that extremely important is that currently, LLVM have core
developers who are more open to new development and faster at integrating new
changes into their code. On the other hand with GCC, the red tape issues goes
beyond licensing or internal/external API. It's not really that particular
"politics" that's the core problem with GCC nowadays. It's true that
it didn't help, and has hurt it quite a bit. However, the real problem with GCC
is the many core developers involved with it are unwilling to significantly
accommodate needed change. At some point, if there are no change to GCC
development, GCC will probably become no longer relevant for most people.
Personally, I think LLVM is a good development right now, but there are some
risks we are taking with this route (though not necessarily equally risky for
everyone). Hopefully, things will work out right. But I get a feeling that once
LLVM gains much wider support and is improved further, we might find that we
need another alternative yet again due to different "politics".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
"rankly, GCC would have been a lot better if RMS wasn't so
focused on making
sure that nobody could "wrap" non-GPLed code around it"
umm, your phrase highlights the lack of honesty. Wrap non-
gpl'd code? No, you absolutely can wrap non-gpl code in -
the restriction is only as far as *licensing*, not as far as
which code. To take BSD code and put it in to a GPL program,
remind me: where is the limitation again? Please don't refer
to wrapping programs and licensing at the same time, they
are separate things and separate issues.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
