Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:06:55 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <20120620160655.GA21283@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200643490.71030@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de> <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at> <20120620030854.GA15821@hemlock.hydra> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200643490.71030@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:45:16AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >>>but not to be turned into closed source products. > >> > >>What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called > >>"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open > >>your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... > > > >Give him a break. His heart is in the right place, though his choice of > > GNU licence is nothing about freedom, it just says it is freedom. > > But what really is important for FreeBSD is if it can be used. IMHO > nothing from GPLv3 prevents it, and it is no licence based reasons > to use clang. 1. This has nothing to do with what I said. 2. I prefer Clang. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120620160655.GA21283>