FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

[fuzz]

See, corporations tend to love money and keeping their stuff closed. The only corporation I would trust to give back to BSD is Google. And what do ya know, Google uses Linux.

If you don't mind giving changes back to the project, you don't care about the GPL. If you want to flip off the original developers, BSD license is great! I think the BSD license is good for smaller projects, where developers just want to get their work out in the open. But otherwise companies will take and take.

[Awesomeness]

First off, Apple didn't create CUPS, CUPS was the backbone of *nix printing way before Apple bought it because they needed a wide printing solution. Now CUPS was GPL, right after Apple bought it they changed the licencing to excempt themselves from the GPL so that they (but noone else) could use/modify CUPS in a proprietary manner.

Wrong. The deal to exempt Apple from GPL rules was struck long before Apple bought all rights.

As for webkit, they forked it off KHTML and they certainly put alot of work into it but so has MANY other contributors, and unlike the other contributors Apple has been dragging their feet when it comes to releasing their source changes and not doing so until they recieved several complaints.

Wrong. Apple released all required sources on time in compliance with the LGPL. Some complained that they preferred small individual patches but that was never required by the LGPL. In fact, if Apple only released patches, they'd violated the LGPL.
Red Hat releases all modified RHEL kernels as big dump instead of individual patches to make Oracle?s life harder. Nobody complains about that.

This surprised me, who?

David Hyatt. He was hired because Apple briefly thought that improving Mozilla?s Camino browser would be worth the effort. Between 2002 (when he was hired by Apple) and 2003 or so (when Safari was released) he kept working on Camino.
Wikipedia is unclear about this but you can check Bugzilla yourself, e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206933#c8

[LightBit]

See, corporations tend to love money and keeping their stuff closed. The only corporation I would trust to give back to BSD is Google. And what do ya know, Google uses Linux.

You should never trust corporations.
Corporations give back to BSD, because it's cheaper for them. They get free developers. So both have benefit.

[XorEaxEax]

Wrong. The deal to exempt Apple from GPL rules was struck long before Apple bought all rights.

Even if that was the case what difference does it make? If anything it shows that Apple really want to be able to keep their enhancements proprietary.

Wrong. Apple released all required sources on time in compliance with the LGPL.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/10/apple_releases_ios_4_3_webkit_source_code_after_complaints_from_developers.html

[LightBit]

In my opinion the reason is that GPL ensures a level playing field for all participants in the kernel development, no one is allowed to keep their enhancements closed if they want to distribute anything with those enhancements. For a company to release some enhancement back which a competitor can snatch up while not returning the favor like with BSD will make little sense in the boardroom. Meanwhile with GPL everyone is bound by the licence to play fair. Certainly in a perfect world this would not be necessary and companies would just contribute back because it's the right thing to do and there would be no holding out, but in the world we live in I think that for collaborative development GPL makes perfect sense, even more so for companies which are generally the equivalent of an extremely selfish person.

Linux is selfish too. They take BSD's code and don't give it back. And many Linux distributions are violating GPL, with closed source modules.

GPL is not so free. Copyleft per file would be better.

[fuzz]

Linux is selfish too. They take BSD's code and don't give it back.

Linux code is available for BSD to use . They don't want it.

[LightBit]

Linux code is available for BSD to use . They don't want it.

Yes, if they use GPL for all their code. Why Linux doesn't want ZFS?
GPL is more selfish than any corporation.

[pingufunkybeat]

Linux is selfish too. They take BSD's code and don't give it back. And many Linux distributions are violating GPL, with closed source modules.

GPL is not so free. Copyleft per file would be better.

I believe that all of Linux DRM + drivers are MIT licensed. BSDs could port that code if they wanted to. But nobody does.

GPL is more selfish than any corporation.

The code is there for everybody to use however the hell they want. That is the opposite of selfish.

The only restriction is on redistribution, and it means that you can't take what isn't yours and restrict your users the rights they originally had. That is also the opposite of selfish.

[Awesomeness]

Even if that was the case what difference does it make? If anything it shows that Apple really want to be able to keep their enhancements proprietary.

Don't you feel embarrassed to show how clueless you are over and over again? Seriously: You are talking bullsh*t all the time. It's not Apple who keep any CUPS enhancements proprietary. The GPL exception is for HP, Epson, Canon, etc.. They want to keep their drivers proprietary and Apple lets them.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...evelopers.html

Bullshit. Did http://webkit.org suddenly disappear? No. It was just bitching that it wasn't available from http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Big deal?

[archibald]

I believe that all of Linux DRM + drivers are MIT licensed. BSDs could port that code if they wanted to. But nobody does.

FreeBSD people are porting that code, see http://wiki.freebsd.org/Intel_GPU. To quote the page directly: "Large parts of the code were taken from the Intel GPU driver in the Linux kernel". There is also an attempt in the OpenBSD camp.

<rhetorical>Is it not possible for GPL fans and BSD fans to discuss a compiler change without descending into licensing wars?</rhetorical>