Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)

Xin LI wrote:
> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>> On Thursday 29 January 2009 05:20:33 Chuck Swiger wrote:
>>> Evidently, the FSF is now claiming that all object code produced from
>>> GCC 4.2.2 and later is GPLv3-licensed, and only their exception
>>> permits you to distribute executables compiled using an "Eligible
>>> Compilation Process" under the terms of some other license.
>> The "eligible compilation process" is where you use GCC and GPL compatible 
>> software.
> 
>> I think for the FreeBSD project that is fine.
> 
> I agree, this term seems to be targeted to companies behind closed
> source optimizers.  Speaking for myself, I think FreeBSD would avoid
> GPLv3 code where possible to minimize the risk it would introduce to
> commercial users of our codebase, we want our code be used by as many
> people as possible to better exploit its value.
I don't think this is a "where possible" case.  While version 4.3 may
not include improvements necessary for an operating system future
versions will almost surely have some.  IMHO avoiding GCC because of its
license is pointless.  Commercial users will already be avoiding gcc (if
it matters to them) because of the GPLv2.  The FSF has made it clear
that the output of the compiler is (truly) free for anyone who may have
had any ounce of doubt. To quote from the FAQ:
Who does this change affect?
    Nobody who is currently using GCC should be affected by this change.

 If we were replacing a BSD licensed compiler with a GPL licensed
compiler it would be a different story.
> 
> Cheers,
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"

-- 
Eitan Adler
"Security is increased by designing for the way humans actually behave."
-Jakob Nielsen