LLVM/Clang vs. GCC On The Intel Atom With Linux

[artivision]

Yeah, the code obviously remains under the BSD no matter where you move it - or else you wouldn't still have to follow the rule about the copyright notice.

But for all practical purposes, it is "swallowed up" by the GPL or proprietary licenses, because you can never get anything back out. Any changes to the code could be GPL or proprietary, and therefore not allowed to be copied back into the original upstream BSD codebase, and of course you already have the original code so whatever license that is under really makes no difference.

Yes you can never get anything back out from GPL, but that is nothing to do with the community. BSD is useful for closed source companies, and closing the gap between closed and open. We don't have any reason to produce anything for monetary companies, so we always want something back, and that's why we use GPL. I'm just saying that the monetary companies dreams for a BSD world, will never come true. The 95%+ of the free code, will always be under GPL until the end of patents and IP, and then the end of monetary systems.

[oibaf]

I'm surprised LLVM/Clang 3.1 didn't make it into Ubuntu 12.10... this is why I use and love Arch Linux rolling release.

LLVM is at 3.1:

http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/quantal/llvm-3.1

Clang is still at 3.0, however.

[smitty3268]

I didn't think you could actually *re-license* BSD code, but IIRC you can *include* BSD-licensed code (at least the 2-clause and 3-clause versions) in GPL-licensed software and you can include BSD-licensed code in proprietary software.

Yeah, the code obviously remains under the BSD no matter where you move it - or else you wouldn't still have to follow the rule about the copyright notice.

But for all practical purposes, it is "swallowed up" by the GPL or proprietary licenses, because you can never get anything back out. Any changes to the code could be GPL or proprietary, and therefore not allowed to be copied back into the original upstream BSD codebase, and of course you already have the original code so whatever license that is under really makes no difference.

[F i L]

I'm surprised LLVM/Clang 3.1 didn't make it into Ubuntu 12.10... this is why I use and love Arch Linux rolling release.

BTW, LLVM 3.1 added auto-vectorization to the code generator, which would probably help a lot with the C-Ray performance. That's just a guess though.

[bridgman]

I didn't think you could actually *re-license* BSD code, but IIRC you can *include* BSD-licensed code (at least the 2-clause and 3-clause versions) in GPL-licensed software and you can include BSD-licensed code in proprietary software.

The "no patents" comment by artivision probably meant "no explicit patent grants", which is correct.

[Goderic]

Not at all. When you have some BSD code inside your GPL program, this code remains BSD. So even if someone take that part of your source, he isn't forced to open his source (that's the discussion here), and also the next release of a program can be closed. So basically BSD doesn't protect the free programmer and can't be converted to GPL. All the above doesn't mean that BSD isn't useful. Actually the best thing is LLVM to remain BSD, so that companies will compile their C++ programs and games with LLVM and be Instruction_Set free. Another good thing with BSD is that there are not patents. So if you implement the LLVM technology in the next portable GCC (5 for example), with your own code, then it will be a GPL GCC5_vm, with LLVM binary compatibility.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say but converting BSD into GPL is possible. Of course the original code stays BSD, (that's one of the few things BSD doesn't allow: it doesn't allow you to force the original writer of the code to stop releasing it under the BSD license) but all changes you make can be released under GPL. So if you fork a BSD licensed program and release all the changes under GPL you basically converted it into GPL. You can of course change it also into a proprietary license.

I have no idea what you're saying about BSD having no patents.

[artivision]

Yes, BSD basically allows everything, the only thing you have to do is include the copyright notice. (That's what all these GPL vs BSD here discussions are about)

Not at all. When you have some BSD code inside your GPL program, this code remains BSD. So even if someone take that part of your source, he isn't forced to open his source (that's the discussion here), and also the next release of a program can be closed. So basically BSD doesn't protect the free programmer and can't be converted to GPL. All the above doesn't mean that BSD isn't useful. Actually the best thing is LLVM to remain BSD, so that companies will compile their C++ programs and games with LLVM and be Instruction_Set free. Another good thing with BSD is that there are not patents. So if you implement the LLVM technology in the next portable GCC (5 for example), with your own code, then it will be a GPL GCC5_vm, with LLVM binary compatibility.

[Goderic]

I doubt it will ever happen. I am no lawyer, does BSD license permit changing of once derivate works into different license? If anything, can this software be "converted" into GPL3?

Yes, BSD basically allows everything, the only thing you have to do is include the copyright notice. (That's what all these GPL vs BSD here discussions are about)

[dimko]

Any proprietary Apple-only LLVM extensions so far?

I doubt it will ever happen. I am no lawyer, does BSD license permit changing of once derivate works into different license? If anything, can this software be "converted" into GPL3?

[crazycheese]

Any proprietary Apple-only LLVM extensions so far?