GCC & LLVM Developers May Begin Collaborating

[brad0]

For me all of that are just some talk.
RMS basicly said release everything with gpl3+ lisense, thats normal, I agree to that.

Who cares about freedom should do so, but that was the case before Richard told that anyway.
Did he fear that some people belived that when they release their stuff under bsd that its free then?

And to this point its clear, the gcc devs can take all the code and include it and make out of this peaces gpl3 code.

The other way around thats not working. So I see no problem for gcc, just everybody who cares about freedom release his stuff under gpl lisence who not cares use bsd lisenses.

K that rms again says how bad apple and this stuff is ist ok as a reminder but has no direct effect I think?

So this working together attempt make no sence because gpl devs can use both code anyway it would only help the unfree stuff?

Why would somebody from the gcc team want to do that?

Keep drinking the kool aid crazy one.

[hwertz]

BSD being interested in collaboration is no surprise. It's the GNU guys not shoeing them off the door that is the real shocker.

Well, the thing is, I think Stallman is spot on about Apple's hatred of open source (they will use BSD-licensed code while just meeting the release requirements, but having online store terms that are incompatible with the GPL).

However, I for one (and I think quite a few others) do not consider the BSD license itself to be some big problem in and of itself as Stallman does. Merely collaborating between the LLVM and GCC developers is simply not an issue as far as I'm concerned. For contributors who do not object, they could go as far as dual-licensing contributions that apply to both (so GCC could use the contribution with GPL license, and LLVM with BSD license.)

I'm curious, since LLVM has been modular all along, and gcc has become more modular of late, is it possible to have a seperately-licensed "plugin" for either one?

[Daktyl198]

I'm curious, since LLVM has been modular all along, and gcc has become more modular of late, is it possible to have a seperately-licensed "plugin" for either one?

If I remember correctly, LLVM/Clang allows for proprietary (or separately licensed) plugins, but GCC requires plugins to be GPL.
Remember that article a little while ago where there was a guy asking the GCC devs to lessen their restrictions on plugins?

[GreatEmerald]

I think this is a nice idea. The thing is, licenses are irrelevant in this context. They could just as well collaborate with Visual Studio developers. This is not about code, but about ideas. Sharing the plans of both is nice and can result in less compatibility problems down the road, as well as keep new features in sync. They will be created separately due to license and structural reasons, but that's fine as it will be possible to compare the implementations of both.

[Aeder]

For contributors who do not object, they could go as far as dual-licensing contributions that apply to both (so GCC could use the contribution with GPL license, and LLVM with BSD license.)

That's pretty stupid. GCC can already take any code they want from LLVM and re-license it under GPL. Cooperation is not necessary for that.

Only LLVM would gain something from that arrangement.

[smitty3268]

Interestingly, this didn't turn into a GCC vs. LLVM flame fest or GPL vs. BSD

Don't worry, Michael, I'm sure it will here in the forums.

BSD being interested in collaboration is no surprise. It's the GNU guys not shoeing them off the door that is the real shocker.

Oh look, the very first post.

[V10lator]

GCC requires plugins to be GPL.

No, it doesn't. The point is that the API/ABIs can (and do) break at every new release of GCC while they are stable with LLVM, but that's the only difference.

[Delgarde]

BSD being interested in collaboration is no surprise. It's the GNU guys not shoeing them off the door that is the real shocker.

Most people working on GNU projects - the ones who actually do the work - are actually pretty reasonable, pragamatic folks. It's the people at the higher levels of the FSF that turn into rabid frothing maniacs during the full moon, or whenever the GPL is questioned...

[Delgarde]

I'm curious, since LLVM has been modular all along, and gcc has become more modular of late, is it possible to have a seperately-licensed "plugin" for either one?

No, because being modular doesn't mean they're in any way compatible to the point where any kind of code sharing would be possible.

[wizard69]

For me all of that are just some talk.
RMS basicly said release everything with gpl3+ lisense, thats normal, I agree to that.

Which is asinine. With GPL you loose your freedom to use code as you see fit. It is by definition a terribly restrictive license.

Who cares about freedom should do so, but that was the case before Richard told that anyway.

The one thing Richard is good at is brain washing people much it the same way a cult leader brain washes his followers.

Did he fear that some people belived that when they release their stuff under bsd that its free then?

The software is far freer than anything released under GPL.

And to this point its clear, the gcc devs can take all the code and include it and make out of this peaces gpl3 code.

BSD is still copyrighted code.
[Quote]
The other way around thats not working. So I see no problem for gcc, just everybody who cares about freedom release his stuff under gpl lisence who not cares use bsd lisenses.
[Quote]
Those that truly care have looked for alternative license to the GPL.

K that rms again says how bad apple and this stuff is ist ok as a reminder but has no direct effect I think?

I think what bother RMS is that Apple is having a lot of success using and supporting open source software. And they do that by avoiding the GPL when they can. His pain isn't that Apple is dangerous, his pain is that they embrace alternative license.

So this working together attempt make no sence because gpl devs can use both code anyway it would only help the unfree stuff?

Why would somebody from the gcc team want to do that?

Calling LLVM and Clang unfree is ridiculous. The source code is far freer than anything released under GPL. The fact that is un encumbered with restrictive license is why there is a rush in the community to support it.

I agree with one thing the proposal makes no sense at all. However the reasons are far different than yours. For one the last thing we need is the developers lock step on the same development path. Innovation comes from hashing competing ideas and having the freedom to experiment. If this proposal where to become the order of the day, both suites would become the stagnate piece of crap GCC was a few years ago. In this case competition has been very good for both teams.

The other problem I have is that a ship can't have two captains. It is far better for each suite to mature under the direction of its main developers as they realize their platform. That is trying to get people with different visions to work together is sometimes counter productive. Just look at the terrible mess that Linux has with desktop Windows Managers.