C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

[Pawlerson]

Do you have any numbers to share?

Be sane and face the reality. Just compare Linux to BSD and tell me which one has superior support from dozens of companies?

Only because they give away their code "for free"?

No, GPL developers also give the code away for free.

Why? It is their decision. I could call GPL users also not sane, because other people have to write the same stuff again and then you get two incompatible libraries.

It's a straw man argument. GPL is compatible with GPL. Dot.

Happens alot nowadays. And maybe the "not GPL" project gets more users (maybe companies) then (maybe) your GPL project is dead because nobody uses it anymore. Then all your work was useless...

Same is true for BSD, but worse - some can use your code, distribute and you have nothing.

Sure, you have to choose your way but this does not mean that your way is the only right one...

It's a hard fact GPL is better than BSD when you compete against other projects.

[pingufunkybeat]

Ah i see, thats why projects like WebKit, LLVM and PostgreSQL gets no code from companies back... oh wait...

Webkit is the textbook example of LGPL protecting your freedom.

If KHTML had been BSD instead of LGPL, Safari would be the new Internet Explorer and Chrome would be based on Gecko.

[pingufunkybeat]

Webkit is in the process of being relicensed BSD. All code contributions are BSD-licensed and Apple's Webkit2 is entirely BSD-licensed.

This is called a re-write, not relicensing.

You can't relicense KHTML parts, only get rid of them. Which Apple is happy to do, being anti-GPL haters they are.

[LightBit]

It's a straw man argument. GPL is compatible with GPL. Dot.

GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2.

[nslay]

What advancements have apple incorporated back to FreeBSD? They open sourced Grand Dispatch which the FreeBSD devs ported, same goes for Clang. Meanwhile Apple released Darwin under a copyleft-style licence (GPL incompatible of course) which therefore is of no real use for the BSD's. Are there any other?

A few years ago, they gave the FreeBSD project a new audit system, a joint work by McAffee and Apple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSM

But stuff like this should be expected ... you know who is charge of UNIX technology at Apple right? None other than the founder of the FreeBSD project himself ...

[Pawlerson]

GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2.

I was talking about same versions.

[carewolf]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the viral GPL license us is dying and free BSD style licenses are rapidly on the rise.

The GPL has become synonymous with failure:

* GPL Mozilla Firefox got taken out by BSD licensed Chrome

* GPL licensed Linux cellphone OSes got take out by BSD licensed Android

Chrome is a proprietrary browser based on the LGPL WebKit.

Android is a Linux (aka GPL) cellphone OS.

Are you being sarcastic or retarded? I can't tell!

[carewolf]

Webkit is in the process of being relicensed BSD. All code contributions are BSD-licensed and Apple's Webkit2 is entirely BSD-licensed.

No, no and no.

Maybe I am biased being an actualWebKit developer, but there is no such process happening at any level, and you obviously have misunderstood what WebKit2 is since it is simply a new API for WebCore, not a new project or replacement for any code except interface code.

KHTML -> WebCore
WebKit(1) old API for WebCore, used by Chromium, Qt and iOS
WebKit2 new API for WebCore, used by Safari and Qt.

[blinxwang]

If you guys want an example of a huge failure of permissive licenses, take a look at Android.
Android would be all right today if Google licensed everything under the GPLv3. No locked bootloaders, no unremovable bloatware, no carrier-enforced fragmentation. Just free code and customizability.

[nslay]

If you guys want an example of a huge failure of permissive licenses, take a look at Android.
Android would be all right today if Google licensed everything under the GPLv3. No locked bootloaders, no unremovable bloatware, no carrier-enforced fragmentation. Just free code and customizability.

I doubt GPLv3 Android would prevent that since the real meat is the Linux kernel underneath.

If Linux was GPLv3, Google may have picked something else to drive their Android software ... sad to say, but I don't think network operators and phone/tablet vendors really want to give us the same freedoms we enjoy and expect on the PC.

I think a GPLv3 Linux could still run on most, if not all, phones/tablets since a locked bootloader isn't really the same as Tivoization (am I wrong?). If you did get an engineering bootloader, you could hypothetically boot any Linux version, modified or not.