Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Replaces libstdc++ Library With libc++

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
    LOL why are we arguing about licenses here as now this thread's pretty much derailed.

    What are the real benefits of LLVM over GCC in this case, besides speed?
    Because the licenses are more interesting then some meaningless comparison between the current llvm implementation against three version old GCC one. Btw. besides what speed?

    Speed, diagnostics, size, and not being limited to the GPL universe.
    What speed? It's not "limited" to the GPL universe, so companies can suck what they want from it and give nothing back.

    Comment


    • #17
      Can I modify LLVM source code and redistribute binaries or other tools based on it, without redistributing the source?



      Yes. This is why we distribute LLVM under a less restrictive license than GPL, as explained in the first question above.

      Amen.


      http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#license

      Comment


      • #18
        Apple control freak, DRM shakedown

        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        Speed, diagnostics, size, and not being limited to the GPL universe.
        I expect Apple will eventually slap a draconian EULA on the compiler suite (think "Can only compile under OS X on Apple-made hardware") and charge an exorbitant amount for it. Plus, they'll make key components of the suite proprietary so that the open source version is worthless by iself.

        This is exactly what they did with the Darwin OS, which is worthless without the other EULA- and DRM-encumbered parts of OS X.


        Apple is an expert at leaching off open source and not giving anything in return. I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally make this "BSD-style license" incompatible with GPLv2 or v3. Phoronix, please stop advertising LLVM - it will only lead good GCC devs astray to toil on a project that will be useless to Linux and FOSS users in general.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          It's not "limited" to the GPL universe, so companies can suck what they want from it and give nothing back.
          If they wish, that is their choice. If they choose to contribute back, that is their choice as well. Again they are not limited to the myopic vision of the GPL.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            If they wish, that is their choice. If they choose to contribute back, that is their choice as well. Again they are not limited to the myopic vision of the GPL.
            I just mentioned this, because in my opinion some people wanted to make llvm license look more "safe" against this. I always know Apple and similar can't stand the GPL, because it doesn't make GPL developers its servants.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by stan View Post
              This is exactly what they did with the Darwin OS, which is worthless without the other EULA- and DRM-encumbered parts of OS X.


              Apple is an expert at leaching off open source and not giving anything in return. I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally make this "BSD-style license" incompatible with GPLv2 or v3. Phoronix, please stop advertising LLVM - it will only lead good GCC devs astray to toil on a project that will be useless to Linux and FOSS users in general.
              Darwin OS is still usable and Apple has done nothing to change it otherwise. There is nothing stopping someone from taking Darwin slapping another UI on it.

              As far as "Apple not giving back" that too is just plain false. They do give back even at times where they don't have too. Nobody forced them for example to opensource grand central. Nobody is forcing them to continue cups support for linux, nobody is forcing them to contribute and sponsor LLVM. Every change that Apple has made to a FOSS project to suite their purposes are freely available for anyone to pull in if they desire.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                According to the link you provided only this part must be included (in the source or in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution):

                That's all. I can relicense this under the GPL, change the project name (or merge the code to my project) include above copyright notice, improve the GPL version and I don't have to give improvements back to the BSD version I took and upgraded.
                That's not true. According to the link I provided, which says:
                Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
                notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers
                So, if you distribute the source code, you need to do so with the copyright notice, list of conditions and disclaimers. That gives the original project the right to take the improved code and use it under the BSD style license.

                By the rules of the BSD style license, you're not required to distribute the source code along with binaries derived from that source code, but GPL programs obviously do. So, when libstdc++ uses files from libc++, any modifications will be distributed in source code form, and they will be licensed BSD style.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  I always know Apple and similar can't stand the GPL, because it doesn't make GPL developers its servants.
                  I disagree, by using the GPL, you are their servants. You cannot do anything that the GPL does not permit.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    According to the mailing lists Apple is backing LLVM mainly because it prohibited its own devs to touch any GPL3 code.
                    Other reasons, less important but still significant are, to try to make it a better gcc while they're at it.
                    One reason to worry is because _Apple_ is behind LLVM and since it pretty much resembles USSR the iron curtain might close any time (i.e. sudden license change) so one better not rely on Apple stuff unless there are urgent reasons for that.
                    One reason to rejoice is that as long as LLVM's license stays BSD like the gcc folks (probably) can steal the good code. GCC has no serious free alternative and that's very bad (Linus also acknowledged this), hence if LLVM makes some apps run like 10-200% faster that will certainly force the gcc folks to "break" some backward compatibility and eventually stop arguing that backwards compatibility is _that_ important.
                    Bottom line, when real competition kicks in - excuses, half-truths and bureaucracy don't survive, which is good for anyone.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Ah, I see my error. The BSD style license requires keeping 3 conditions, but doesn't say anything about additional conditions. The GPL just adds more conditions to original 3. This is allowed by the BSD style license, so this kind of 'conversion' of BSD code into GPL code is possible. It's a really strange thing for a copyright license though... a third party can add conditions after the fact, basically change the entire meaning of the license. Not many licenses allow this.

                      Note that it would also be possible to create a license, let's call it BSD+, that *does* require modifications to be licensed under just those 3 conditions, but allow additional conditions that can be removed at any time. Using BSD+ code in a GPL licensed file would automatically dual license the code in that file. This would obviously limit its compatibility to GPL code for which the authors allowed this kind of dual licensing. The goal of such a BSD+ license would be to keep BSD code BSD compatible, while still allowing it to be merged with other code, or closed up.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        I disagree, by using the GPL, you are their servants. You cannot do anything that the GPL does not permit.
                        Yes, you serve GPL projects thus you serve the GPL community. While using BSD you serve companies/people who made closed source programs, BSD community and the GPL community. I'm talking about the BSD type license which allows people to do what they want with the code which is licensed under it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by deanjo
                          I disagree, by using the GPL, you are their servants. You cannot do anything that the GPL does not permit.
                          And this is the definition of a software license.

                          Every software license, including the BSD.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Remco View Post
                            You can't just change the license of a work without consent of the author.
                            Depends on the licensing the author put it under.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              I disagree, by using the GPL, you are their servants. You cannot do anything that the GPL does not permit.
                              The same goes for BSD. If you're operating under the Four Clause BSD license, you have to announce for the world that you used code from the authors under that license- no matter what you do with that code. If you don't you're not licensed for publication and derivative works.

                              If you don't agree with the licensing, just simply don't use code that uses it. By the way, if this is the case, why are you still using Linux?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Remco View Post
                                Note that it would also be possible to create a license, let's call it BSD+, that *does* require modifications to be licensed under just those 3 conditions, but allow additional conditions that can be removed at any time. Using BSD+ code in a GPL licensed file would automatically dual license the code in that file. This would obviously limit its compatibility to GPL code for which the authors allowed this kind of dual licensing. The goal of such a BSD+ license would be to keep BSD code BSD compatible, while still allowing it to be merged with other code, or closed up.
                                Nope. Read up on the licensing. You can not add/remove restrictions past what the GPL allows unless you are specifically the license holder. Once you GPL/LGPL something, any upstream providers from your modifications will be licensed under the GPL unless you own the whole thing. If you make it you can dual license it. Anybody that takes up the GPL branch will have code that can only be licensed under the GPL branch.

                                Besides, what you're trying to do is accomplish the GPL there without trying to "restrict" things. Unfortunately, there is a reason that many GPLed projects are flourishing and many of the BSD licensed ones are not. If you ponder for a moment why that might be, you might understand things better. You might not wholly agree with the tenets, but there IS something to it all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X