Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:09:50 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) Message-ID: <20090129030950.GA9605@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <200901291330.18007.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <20090128155340.GA75143@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <200901291243.00378.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <49811242.7030106@delphij.net> <200901291330.18007.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 01:30:09PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Thursday 29 January 2009 12:49:46 Xin LI wrote: > > > The "eligible compilation process" is where you use GCC and GPL > > > compatible software. > > > > > > I think for the FreeBSD project that is fine. > > > > I agree, this term seems to be targeted to companies behind closed > > source optimizers. Speaking for myself, I think FreeBSD would avoid > > GPLv3 code where possible to minimize the risk it would introduce to > > commercial users of our codebase, we want our code be used by as many > > people as possible to better exploit its value. > > Seems like a fairly marginal case (speaking as someone who ships proprietary > software built by GCC running on FreeBSD). > > I think for the compiler/tool chain GPLv3 is OK, but for example, in libraries > it would [very] bad. > > Luckily I don't see that being a problem for FreeBSD :) > The FSF has not decided what to do about the runtime libraries. These are currently gplv2+link time exception. In the future, the libraries may be gplv3 + some new link time exception. - Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090129030950.GA9605>