Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should
be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the
program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway DragonFly BSD developers
(which is BSD licenced) don't have any problems and just use latest gcc.
I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea.
I am saying this. Moving to worse compiler is a definitely bad idea.
This is not a place of politics. As GPLv3 doesn't prevent it from being
used in FreeBSD and is better - it should be used. It's simple.
If clang would be better - it should be used.
Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if
we compile
the base system with a gpl v3 gcc?
there are none probably.
Before actually testing it i believed we move to clang because it is
better compiler AND and supported a move. Good lesson to test first and
don't believe, even with FreeBSD.
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under this
license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making their
own OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper for
example. It would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3.
As for DragonflyBSD they AFAIK are taking the path of fixing world to
build on any stock compiler as we currently do. And they have no such
user base to support.
FreeBSD is heading the right way: bringing BSD toolchain to the world
and fixing world compilation with gcc46 from ports would give anyone a
choice on which compiler to use keeping GPL out of tree.
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
