Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: LLVM Offered Into The Software Freedom Conservancy

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    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).

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    74

    Default

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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geearf View Post
    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •