Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 104

Thread: LLVM Replaces libstdc++ Library With libc++

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    941

    Default

    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?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #17

    Default

    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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default Apple control freak, DRM shakedown

    Quote 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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote 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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •