Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Replaces libstdc++ Library With libc++

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Remco View Post
    If you put a file on the internet with a BSD style notice and a GPL notice on top of it, then you can't claim that your changes are GPL only. They are licensed GPL *and* they are licensed BSD. That means any user can choose a license, and obey that one.
    BSD is GPL compatible, and it doesn't require modifications to be made under the same terms.

    Comment


    • #12
      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?

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        This serves as a nice example of the BSD license chat in the forum.
        Clang uses the LLVM license which is a "BSD Style" license but not the actual BSD license.

        Also the original BSD license is not GPL compatible because of it's advertising clause.

        Comment


        • #14
          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?
          Speed, diagnostics, size, and not being limited to the GPL universe.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Remco View Post
            If you put a file on the internet with a BSD style notice and a GPL notice on top of it, then you can't claim that your changes are GPL only. They are licensed GPL *and* they are licensed BSD. That means any user can choose a license, and obey that one.
            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):

            Copyright (c) <Year> <Owner Organization Name>
            All rights reserved.

            Developed by: <Name of Development Group>
            <Name of Institution>
            <URL for Development Group/Institution>
            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.

            Comment


            • #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

                      Working...
                      X