The GPL FORCES you to stick with a license and an 'ideology' and yet it is considered FREE software.
to the flash thing.
I wonder always how much hate people are willing to capture for their actions for so little gain.
I mean ok if you are Microsoft and make much money with beeing evil, I can understand it, but does Adobe really makes (much/any) Money from keeping the flash player closed source? I mean its not only the classic 5% Linux guys who hate them extremly, its also all the Android users at least they should ^^ and apple hates them. Because they releases the biggest crap ever.
I mean if the flash player would be even somewhat resourcefriendly by playing a 720p file, but they do not only suck in giving no free client out for a tool thats free of charge. they even are light-years away from having a resourcefriendly client.
So I wish to next christmess to them aids or something like that. Unbelivable how much suffering someone can produce "just for fun" for millions of people, because they can.
Again, the BSD license certainly does not promote closed source software, and no, you can't "close it down", that's ridiculous.
You can't change the license of a BSD licensed project to something proprietary, that's just not possible. LLVM will always be free software.
It's just that companies like Apple can take it, modify it how they want and distribute it how they like. Thats freedom, you know. However, that doesn't mean you have to pay for the original LLVM, which is still free.
And OS X isn't a stolen BSD, Apple just took parts(like the network stack) from FreeBSD- and guess what, FreeBSD people are fine with that, only hardcore GPL people seem to be offended of this.
You have to realize that people who chose a BSD-style license may not think how you do, have different views on things, and thus prefer a BSD-style license over a GPL one.
I believe you're smart enough to accept that people are not always like you and make different decisions.
BSD licenses primarily ensure the freedom of the developer to do whatever they want with the code.
GPL licenses primarily give freedom to the user of the software to do whatever they want with the code.
Different people will have different priorities when it comes to these two.
As for my views on GCC and LLVM/Clang, I like them both. GCC has been and is still my primary compiler toolchain at work and at home, but Clang/LLVM is there aswell and I compile against them both.
But even if you are 'all in' for Clang/LLVM like elanthis obviously is, you'd have to be a f***ing moron to want to see GCC disappear. Yet elanthis has made no secret that in his 'rabid fandom' or if it's 'rabid hatred' he wants GCC gone. (so yes, he is a moron)
Again Apple developed Clang as a frontend to use with their proprietary solutions, they are a proprietary company. The reason they keep siphoning off the BSD projects is because they can use that code in proprietary offerings. This is what leads to my fear with Clang (and in part with LLVM), which is that Apple will eventually stop submitting their enhancements as open source, probably it will start with small things which they say only have relevance against their proprietary solutions like XCode but then it will continue on, simply because Apple is at it's core a proprietary company with lock-in as their model.
So now, if you like Clang/LLVM and want to have it available and developed all in the open then the single biggest thing ensuring that this will remain so is the existance and well-being of an alternative like GCC.
And beyond that, we have the fact that competition is what keeps stagnation away. GCC has had competition in a form from proprietary compiler solutions but obviously having strong competition from another open source compiler will continue to benefit these two projects (and more importantly us users) immensely.
I think it also makes a great licence for companies who wants to cooperate with open source on a legally binding even playfield, the large amount of full-time developers paid by companies to work on Linux seems to support my thesis.
On the other hand if you do not want/need/expect any help with developing a piece of software (either because it's 'done' or you have the resources to take it anywhere you want without help) then I think BSD/MIT style licencing is much more appropriate.
Also, some type of software is better suited for certain licences I think, something which is developed as a whole is better suited for GPL than framework/component style code which is better off in a practical sense when licenced permissively or LGPL style.