Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:44:52 +0200 From: Eduardo <nec556@retena.com> To: Gary Dunn <knowtree@aloha.com>,Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: gcc Message-ID: <4D301C9700CF8CF6@> (added by postmaster@resmaa12.ono.com) In-Reply-To: <b795a12e-5183-4f15-bb85-f1195e33cbd5@email.android.com> References: <ca77572a-c5aa-4c7c-818a-9684d0b5a907@email.android.com> <AANLkTim=miix3V_=TSR4pBraSGV6YuvDy6H-z0D4wKwJ@mail.gmail.com> <b795a12e-5183-4f15-bb85-f1195e33cbd5@email.android.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 20:19 31/03/2011, Gary Dunn wrote: >Can someone point me to an official position statement on this ban >on GPL3 code in FreeBSD? Doesn't seem right to me. And please, no >GPL flame wars. Don't know if there were an official Some links that may be interesting: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=7035 http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd9.html "CLANG / LLVM compiler" entry http://www.links.org/?p=518 "Will GPLv3 Kill GPL?" http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility "GPLv2 compatible with GPLv3?" http://www.bsdcan.org/2010/schedule/events/175.en.html Apple and some other companies made the switch from gcc to llvm some years ago, in Apple case, because gnu/fsf forced to make all objective-c compiler developed by Apple for gcc open source, because gcc was GPL (http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1390172) Resuming, or my resume, GPLv3 is politically incorrect for a BSD project, it's preferred BSD tools, made by BSD community for BSD community and (as licence allows it) by extension everyone than GPLv3 tools made for GNU/FSF and (as licence don't permit share) only for them. HTH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D301C9700CF8CF6>