Printable View
Phoronix: LLVM Offered Into The Software Freedom Conservancy
The LLVM project applied to be part of the Software Freedom Conservancy and the Conservancy's Project Evaluation Committee has approved of accepting the increasingly popular open-source compiler infrastructure...
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE4Nzg
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.
@crazycheese And yet... its still a very competitive compiler on several fronts.
I don't know if I like the sound of this... I guess its ok as long as copy rigtt is not assigned to this conservancy (as it they could change the license to GPL etc...)
Its not that I dislike GPL its just that for many things it is not apropriate.
Which things?Quote:
Originally Posted by cb88
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycheese
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
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.
Sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycheese
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ownagefool
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycheese