Printable View
So, the BSD license gives you the FREEDOM to do whatever you want with the code (like closing it) and yet is not FREE software.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycheese
The GPL FORCES you to stick with a license and an 'ideology' and yet it is considered FREE software.
The irony...
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.
fuckin....
Please, you're making a fool out of yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycheese
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.
Delicious spam you got there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg0ory
... and on a lot of your posts (if not all, didn't bother checking).
It's probably one of those spambots that copy other posts and add image links .. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mybug
They are both free, but in different ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio
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.
Only if you cherry pick features, if you look at language support and compability GCC easily comes out at top. Clang has areas in which it shines, particularly diagnostics but it's nowhere near a full drop-in replacement for the GCC frontend.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanthis
Quote:
Originally Posted by elanthis
Here you go with unsubstantiated claims only aimed at painting a negative picture, with nothing backing them up. I've seen absolutely no indication of the project GCC losing developers, please point me to some facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanthis
This is exactly what happened, Steve Jobs when running NeXT tried to use GCC as a backend for their proprietary ObjC frontend, which he legally couldn't and since he needed GCC this is how it ended up with ObjC support. Yes, proprietary companies want to use open source (NeXT and later Apple built their software on GCC long before Clang and LLVM existed or where even useable), but few of them have the decency to give back except when legally compelled to as history shows. This technical barrier has been alleviated by the plugin system which GCC now supports.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanthis
Clang was developed because Apple wanted a frontend to complement LLVM which was permissively licenced so that they can incorporate it into their proprietary offerings. The key word here is _proprietary_, XCode is proprietary so they want to make use of surrounding tools which allow them to keep their solutions proprietary, like they picked up DTrace and turned it into their proprietary Instruments.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanthis
Certainly possible, it's also just as possible that GCC will improve diagnostics to match and better Clang/LLVM. Meanwhile Clang/LLVM hasn't come closer to GCC in the last couple of releases and judging by the tests I've done with snapshots during the current release cycle (that said, development snapshots are not definitive) GCC 4.8 widens the performance gap even further. (note, I only benchmark X86_64)Quote:
Originally Posted by elanthis
You base this upon what data?Quote:
Originally Posted by elanthis
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.
Yes, but the main draw with GPL for developers is that they, as 'recipients' are entitled to enhancements made to their code. This practical advantage is in my opinion the BIG reason why GPL is the most used licence by far, rather than the ideological stance it takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
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.