Seems like fashion to me. CLANG/LLVM produces slower code than GCC, but new is sexy! As for the features, let's wait a year or three and see where this thing is at.
Which IMHO is neither here nor there - you pick your license and you take your chances.
The anger seems to come from that this group of people speaks of their license as open source, but BSD license is only as open source as a user of it chooses to be, whereas GPL denies the right to close the source.
By way of example, remember Darwin and Apple? Yes you can still get Darwin, it's still "open source", but the license used in it's development allowed Apple to grab a copy of the code, add to it and release the product as Mac OSX, and not acknowledge Darwin devs at least as far as profit is concerned. That was kinda sleazy IMHO, and had Darwin been GPL'd then Apple could not legally have stolen all that work.
Don't worry, I'm wearing my teflon and asbestos suit today, have at me.
Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.In July 2003, Apple released Darwin under version 2.0 of the Apple Public Source License (APSL), which the Free Software Foundation (FSF) approved as a free software license. Previous releases had taken place under an earlier version of the APSL that did not meet the FSF's definition of free software, although it met the requirements of the Open Source Definition.So Darwin is actually licenced under copyleft licence that is similar to GPL. You can download its source code from here. So I seriously fail to see the issue here and also it's not stealing if it's permitted by the licence.The first version of the Apple Public Source License was approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Version 2.0, released July 29, 2003 conforms to the Free Software Foundation guidelines, and is also approved by the OSI. The Free Software Foundation approved the Apple Public Source License 2.0 as a free software license and say it is acceptable for developers to work on projects that are already covered by this license. They recommend, however, that developers do not release new projects under this license, because the partial copyleft is not compatible with the GNU General Public License and allows linking with files released entirely as proprietary software. The license does, however, require that if any derivatives from the original source are released externally, that the source be made available.
From a developer standpoint, I'll take ease of development any day, and simply accept a 10% performance penalty.
Darwin was developed using a community model (unpaid developers) and included some Apple people. Apple did not start the Darwin project IIRC, but did become it's sponsor at some point. Much of the work was done pre-2000 during the 1990s. I think the license was a BSD variant, it certainly let people contribute work and it certainly let Apple take all that work and apply some changes, then close source the result, and sell the result as OS X. I can't call that copyleft because while Darwin source can be downloaded (as I noted in my OP), none of the additions in OS X can be.
Point is Darwin source could always be downloaded - even before as you (or wikipedia) say, Apple "released it in 2000". Exactly when the Darwin code base reached production quality Apple grabbed a copy and vanished - it had what it wanted: an OS developed on the cheap.
Can't pull that kind of stunt in a GPL'd project. And as I said, you pick your license and you take your chances.
I have a hard time taking them seriously after that.- Use social networks to disseminate information and news.
I've always been a performance man, I care about that 10%.
When LLVM/Clang exceeds GCC in speed of generated code I will probably switch.