LLVM Offered Into The Software Freedom Conservancy

[yogi_berra]

Clang/LLVM is BSD while GCC is GPL. That means Apple can extend them all they want without ever giving you, or their competition, any sources.

Apple will also sacrifice your first born male child to awaken the great Cthulu from his long sleep.

*sigh*

You get more manageable patches from companies that WANT to contribute. Or did you miss the whining about gpl code dumps in the last few years?

[artivision]

BSD has been recognized by the FSF, isn't that enough to end the discussion?

Yes the BSD is needed to close the gap between Open and Closed, as I describe in the previous page. But the community will not work for BSD because Corporations will use their code without give something back. So if we produce an LLVM plugin that will be under GPL.

[geearf]

BSD has been recognized by the FSF, isn't that enough to end the discussion?

[artivision]

There is nothing wrong with the BSD license. The whole point of the license is that it protects the developer unlike GPL that screws the developer.

GPL protects the right of the free programmer and user. So no one can use the free things only for money and without give something back. No smart human knowing his rights will work for BSD (for monetary corporations).

[wizard69]

GPL is an absolute disaster for open source.

Clang/LLVM is BSD while GCC is GPL. That means Apple can extend them all they want without ever giving you, or their competition, any sources.

There is nothing wrong with the BSD license. The whole point of the license is that it protects the developer unlike GPL that screws the developer.

[artivision]

Sigh.

They're only a victum if they have an issue with it. Since the license allows that by design, you'd assume they don't, thus they're not a victum.

I'm pro GPL, but that doesn't mean that I feel all software needs to be GPLd. Hell, I _wish_ ZFS was BSD licensed.

I vote for GPL, but LLVM can't go GPL. If remains BSD that will be good for all Open_Source, because a closed_games_company for example can program with C++ and compile with LLVM, that will be an instruction set independent build. So in the future we can print Open_Risc processors wile maintain compatibility with Closed_Source. Of course that doesn't mean that we will work for BSD shit. So if we produce an LLVM software rasterizer, that will be under GPL. And some day the GCC5 for example will be portable like LLVM, better and compatible with LLVM binaries.

[ownagefool]

Which things?

I have nothing about LLVM, but the BSD license will allow Apple to take what it wants, tune it, add secret things to it, gain advantage while letting all stay with "base" version. BSD=Opencore. GPL=Opensource.

There was also interesting discussion over at gccplugins

It seems proprietary people are using patents and DRM to prevent using of their content anywhere.
Opensource people are again using patent shields and DRM (ways to prevent attaching, piping or embedding) to prevent using of their content in proprietary models.
And there are BSD people, who prevent nothing and thus instantly fall victims to proprietary sharks.

Sigh.

They're only a victum if they have an issue with it. Since the license allows that by design, you'd assume they don't, thus they're not a victum.

I'm pro GPL, but that doesn't mean that I feel all software needs to be GPLd. Hell, I _wish_ ZFS was BSD licensed.

[elanthis]

Apple and Google worked on getting this done. I recall talking to Chandler (head of Clang development at Google) about this a few months ago. This is something that all of the many, many companies involved with LLVM and Clang are on board with.

[vertexSymphony]

Please, no more license flame wars ... we all know all the arguments that will be flying along, and we all know how it will end up ... being just a show for the readers :S
The on-topic comment is that I'm highly surprised about this, I think I saw bkuhn bitching all over llvm on identi.ca ... but yeah, whatever

[WorBlux]

Which things?

I have nothing about LLVM, but the BSD license will allow Apple to take what it wants, tune it, add secret things to it, gain advantage while letting all stay with "base" version. BSD=Opencore. GPL=Opensource.

There was also interesting discussion over at gccplugins

It seems proprietary people are using patents and DRM to prevent using of their content anywhere.
Opensource people are again using patent shields and DRM (ways to prevent attaching, piping or embedding) to prevent using of their content in proprietary models.
And there are BSD people, who prevent nothing and thus instantly fall victims to proprietary sharks.

They could beside the fact that it's very hard to track changes in something of that size and development rate. In addition Apple tends to do that with user-facing parts, and a compiler generally isn't user-facing.