|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
The BSDL folks like having their code used by everyone, even when some of the
biggest users might never give back to the community.
I probably wouldn't license my code in that manner in most instances, but I can
appreciate that some people might. It isn't wrong, just a rather different
viewpoint.
---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pem on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
Many (maybe most) of the Clang/LLVM developers actually work for Apple.
You think Apple doesn't pay them?
For anybody else, you can take what Apple is doing without giving back, decide
to give back, or whatever you want to do. It's a gift. No strings attached.
Frankly, 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. This was a
classic case of cutting off the nose to spite the face -- if they make the APIs
(oh, heck, am I accidentally on-topic now?) so terrible that nobody can use them
to dump data in a form usable by separate back-end optimizations, then they can
make it difficult to do that. The only problem is that they made it difficult
for their own developers.
LLVM was developed without this political mindset, and it shows -- the
interfaces are nice and clean.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
I know a fair number of developers that write on and for FreeBSD, contribute
their patches back, and ARE PAID for their work. Just because some people don't
play nice doesn't mean that nobody does.
Besides, how many companies out there aren't follow the GPL's distribution
requirement? Hint, it isn't zero. Some will eventually be caught, but I'm sure
that some don't.
BSD uses a social contract, GPL uses a legal one. For the most part, they
accomplish the same thing.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
BSD likes BSD licenses.
I can't explain why, although I can explain
why the BSD license isn't for me. It's their choice.
If you have a
particular problem with the BSD license then perhaps an operating system named
FreeBSD isn't the best choice for you.
Personally, I'll stick with Linux
and GPL code.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
Well, maybe Microsoft takes advantage of some BSD code, but, I would argue, not
nearly enough. Like, maybe, the whole thing. Think of the improvements in
security and stability that would bring. On the other hand, could you base a
patent on top of BSD code?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stevec on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
| as in clanger == mistake
---
Registered Linux user #375134 http://counter.li.org [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
Maybe I'm missing the point, but what's so surprising about FreeBSD using a
BSD-licensed compiler?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:44 AM EDT |
I presume they are grown-ups and are doing what they choose to do in the
way
they choose. There's a GPL compiler still and it's not going away.
Perhaps one should employ some perspective before grousing that somebody
else
doesn't walk in lockstep with one's ideology. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
gcc has grown a number of bad design bugs in the past
decade, which is why
people have started to look for a free
alternative:
- Gcc is lousy
at optimizing code for many important CPUs,
most notably the ARM CPUs used in
Android, IOS, the
Raspberry Pi etc.
- Gcc upstream frequently announces
decisions to drop
architectures that are still in widespread use, such as
Sparc CPUs.
- Contributing bug fixes to gcc has become a bureaucratic
nightmare, with FSF copyright assignments, complex
submission approval
procedures and two self-absorbed
companies
(Red Hat and Mentor Graphics)
acting as gatekeepers.
- Active removal of GNU language extensions and
even
industry common language extensions based on over-zealous
reading of the
language standards (happened around the gcc
3.2 to 4.0 time
frame).
- Difficult to impossible procedures for compiling the
thing,
making source code access almost useless.
- Die hard insistence on not
documenting platform
specifics, even when the platform is a GNU system with no
vendor compiler documentation other than the gcc and gdb
manuals.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
