FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

[XorEaxEax]

Seriously: You are talking bullsh*t all the time.

LOL, coming from YOU?

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?

The source for IOS 4.3 webkit wasn't released AT ALL until they go lots of complaints, can you fucking read?

[LightBit]

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.

But GPL does that. For example: You include few lines of some GPL code into your program. You are foreced to relicence whole YOUR code to GPL, even if you had only slightly modified GPL before.

[LightBit]

The source for IOS 4.3 webkit wasn't released AT ALL until they go lots of complaints, can you fucking read?

One trick about the GPL is that it *DOES* allow for delays, as long as they are 'reasonable'. The GPL also doesn't require that the code be available to absolutely everyone on the internet. They could make you request it on CD, and ship the CD at cost. (Yes, then the person who requested the CD could then post it on the internet - but there is no requirement in the GPL stating that Apple has to do it.)

And as Red Hat has shown, you can even restrict distribution to customers that paid you. Yes, THOSE customers can then redistribute freely, but the originating organization is under no requirement to make the source available to everyone who asks.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/10/apple-finally-releases-ios-4-3-webkit-source-code-under-pressure/

GPL can be understood in different ways.

[kraftman]

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.

GPL is a very smart license and thanks to it Linux can compete with any other operating system. BSD aren't competitive, because everyone can take their code and advantages. GPL is here to protect the code.

[kraftman]

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

While it was a political decision - FreeBSD sponsors don't like GPLv3, it's hard to ignore a licensing part.

[LightBit]

GPL is a very smart license and thanks to it Linux can compete with any other operating system. BSD aren't competitive, because everyone can take their code and advantages. GPL is here to protect the code.

I never said otherwise. True, BSDs are less competitive in features.
You must be selfish, if you want to be competitive.

[pingufunkybeat]

But GPL does that. For example: You include few lines of some GPL code into your program. You are foreced to relicence whole YOUR code to GPL, even if you had only slightly modified GPL before.

Bullshit. Read the licence again and stop spreading FUD.

You are not forced to relicence anything. No licence can force you to relicence anything.

If you violate the GPL, you simply lose the right to use that GPL software you tried to misappropriate, nothing else.

[LightBit]

Bullshit. Read the licence again and stop spreading FUD.

You are not forced to relicence anything. No licence can force you to relicence anything.

If you violate the GPL, you simply lose the right to use that GPL software you tried to misappropriate, nothing else.

By forced I mean without violations. Are you suggesting I should violate GPL?

So if Google makes closed source Linux fork, they will lose the right to use Linux (but not their fork), nothing else? Or I didn't understand you correctly?

[pingufunkybeat]

By forced I mean without violations. Are you suggesting I should violate GPL?

GPL deals with distribution, not use, poor wording on my part there.

If you make a hybrid using a combination of GPL with an incompatible licence, you are not allowed to distribute it. That's it. Nobody can force you to relicence your own software against your wish, remove the GPL parts and continue distributing your stuff however the hell you want.

It's just that since most violations of the GPL are essentially trivial changes to GPL code and then distributing that without source, that simply releasing everything under the GPL is often the easiest and best solution.

[LightBit]

GPL deals with distribution, not use, poor wording on my part there.

If you make a hybrid using a combination of GPL with an incompatible licence, you are not allowed to distribute it. That's it. Nobody can force you to relicence your own software against your wish, remove the GPL parts and continue distributing your stuff however the hell you want.

It's just that since most violations of the GPL are essentially trivial changes to GPL code and then distributing that without source, that simply releasing everything under the GPL is often the easiest and best solution.

That is what I meant.

Corrected example: You include few lines of some GPL code into your program. If you want to distribute it you have to relicence whole YOUR code to GPL, even if you had only slightly modified GPL before.