FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

[LightBit]

You don't have to. You can

1) get the GPL code author's permission to use their code under a different licence (LGPL or BSD or whatever), by offering a reasonable share of the profits from the combined work,
2) rewrite the few lines yourself
3) distribute your software on its own and let the user assemble it -- this is what nvidia does with their drivers, or
4) stop distributing the software to other people.

What you can't do is relicence somebody else's code. If your secrecy is so important to you, and the GPL part is only a small fraction of the value, then write those "few lines of code" yourself instead of freeloading.

But this "virus automatic relicencing of all your code GPL" FUD is just FUD.

1) Why would somebody give me permission to use his code under BSD license, if he released it under GPL, because he is afraid some corporation will "steal" his code?
2) That's what I do. Few lines was an extreme example, it could also be more.
3) Not practical.
4) Isn't Stalman talking about sharing all the time? Truth is his license might fully prevent it.

No, it is manual.

[Chad Page]

I feel that long-term, FreeBSD going to Clang is a Very Good Thing, even setting aside the license.

There are many technically interesting applications for LLVM that gcc is not in a similar position to pursue, and having all of FreeBSD built under Clang will improve it's maturity (and optimizations )

[jrch2k8]

Not at all ... not to mention in OSX and IOS.

Os X and Ios are not freebsd, they are based on the previous jobs company Next BSD code and Mach. they improved some parts of the bsd code with parts of freebsd though but is not freebsd per se.

in the embedded world freebsd is a small share of what linux is, after all embedded is one of the uber strong linux markets

[pingufunkybeat]

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.

You don't have to. You can

1) get the GPL code author's permission to use their code under a different licence (LGPL or BSD or whatever), by offering a reasonable share of the profits from the combined work,
2) rewrite the few lines yourself
3) distribute your software on its own and let the user assemble it -- this is what nvidia does with their drivers, or
4) stop distributing the software to other people.

What you can't do is relicence somebody else's code. If your secrecy is so important to you, and the GPL part is only a small fraction of the value, then write those "few lines of code" yourself instead of freeloading.

But this "virus automatic relicencing of all your code GPL" FUD is just FUD.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.