On 2013-10-28 19:33, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 28/10/13 18:33, Joakim wrote:
Do you have any evidence that they've exerted "proprietary control"
over llvm,
say by adding closed modules to their compiler?
I understand how you could interpret it that way, but my email didn't
actually suggest that Apple had any plans to close-source the compiler.
My impression -- and I'm happy to be proven wrong -- is that Apple
disliked the idea of a GPLv3-licensed compiler because its patent grants
might have created problems for other parts of their software portfolio,
which indeed _are_ proprietary.
Apple uses libclang in Xcode, that is, the dynamic library. They can't
do that with GCC from a license perspective?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
