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

Eitan Adler schrieb:
> 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.

Let me repeat that:
"Nobody who is currently using GCC *should* be affected by this change."

Emphasize mine.

>  If we were replacing a BSD licensed compiler with a GPL licensed
> compiler it would be a different story.
>> Cheers,