> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 10:49 PM > From: "Richard Kenner" <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> > To: dim...@gmx.com > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > > Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly not > > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, but > > I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch, > > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology. But > > things had really been going berserk around 2008. From 2017 onwards, > > I'm somewhat in the dark. They could have started allowing some ownership > > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different > > than ownership rights under commercial contracts. > > I can't understand your point with this version either. Sorry.
It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that people choose. In those places, gcc is used. No Microsoft (i.e. no Fortran Developer Studio, or LLVM). Before, I was using Microsoft Developer studio as a student. In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that provides software products that are difficult or impossible to review. Free software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the source code. Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there.
