On 11 January 2014 11:58, David Nadlinger <c...@klickverbot.at> wrote: > On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:00:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >> >> Because Walter wouldn't be able to work on his current job any longer if >> he looks into other compiler vendors source code. >> >> IP laws are always a complicated issue. > > > Unless you have an actual explanation as to why this would be the case, I'd > simply regard this as FUD. I see how the viral nature of the GCC license > might be a problem for that, but as far as LLVM is concerned, Walter would > even be able to just rebrand Clang as DMC and ship it as a closed-source > package. LLVM also doesn't require any copyright assignments, which might be > an impediment for contributing any fixes back to GCC. >
Remember when I told you that LLVM devs reverted commits made by core GCC developers because apparently there was no explicit contribution by them to LLVM? :-)