Linked by Kroc Camen on Sat 17th Apr 2010 08:40 UTC
FreeBSD Roman Divacky on behalf of the ClangBSD team writes "ClangBSD is a branch of FreeBSD that aims at integrating clang into FreeBSD, replacing GCC as a system compiler. Recently, we've achieved the state when clang can compile all of FreeBSD world on i386/amd64 platforms (including all the C++ apps we have and itself) and a bootable kernel. Thus we feel that the time has come to ask the FreeBSD community for wider testing on i386/amd64 (you sure can help with other platforms too :))."
Order by: Score:
Competition is welcome
by unavowed on Sat 17th Apr 2010 09:31 UTC
unavowed
Member since:
2006-03-23

While I don't see why this is such good news for FreeBSD itself, it is certainly good for the collective free software developer world. The presence of an additional fully-featured free compiler creates competition in the area, which will increase the quality of both compilers and benefit all developers and users.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Competition is welcome
by kaiwai on Sat 17th Apr 2010 10:24 UTC in reply to "Competition is welcome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

While I don't see why this is such good news for FreeBSD itself, it is certainly good for the collective free software developer world. The presence of an additional fully-featured free compiler creates competition in the area, which will increase the quality of both compilers and benefit all developers and users.


I think the interesting part about LLVM is that it is non-GPL and the different approach to compiling when compared to other compilers that are out there especially when you consider the way in which Apple has used LLVM. There are benefits to FreeBSD in that hopefully it'll also force open source projects to purge GCC'ism's and GNU'isms out of the code bases so that they're more platform agnostic which end the end benefits everyone.

I wonder if sometime in the future we'll see an LLVM compiled version of OpenSolaris and including that as part of the system itself ;)

Reply Score: 8

v RE[2]: Competition is welcome
by chris_l on Sat 17th Apr 2010 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Competition is welcome"
RE[3]: Competition is welcome
by reduz on Sat 17th Apr 2010 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Competition is welcome"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

LLVM+Clang has some interesting advantages over GCC, such as more language support, faster compilation time, much friendlier error reporting when compiling (specially helpful when doing templates), and the posibility to to run all the code interpreted.

Another nice feature of LLVM is what is developed by Google in PNACI, which allows its intermediate bytecode to be compiled/run in any platform. This means you can partially compile a C or C++ app, and then the final compilation (or JIT) takes place in any architecture, x86, ARM, etc.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by Lazarus on Sat 17th Apr 2010 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

LLVM+Clang has some interesting advantages over GCC, such as more language support,


I am pretty sure you are incorrect on this point, IIRC Clang is only a C/C++/Obj-C front end for LLVM, with no aim to support other languages.

While I am sure that LLVM can and will be used for many more languages and purposes in the future, I think that GCC still supports more languages at the present time.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by tyrione on Sat 17th Apr 2010 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"LLVM+Clang has some interesting advantages over GCC, such as more language support,


I am pretty sure you are incorrect on this point, IIRC Clang is only a C/C++/Obj-C front end for LLVM, with no aim to support other languages.

While I am sure that LLVM can and will be used for many more languages and purposes in the future, I think that GCC still supports more languages at the present time.
"

C/C++/ObjC/ObjC++ front-end with a unified parser.

http://clang.llvm.org/

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Competition is welcome
by moondevil on Sun 18th Apr 2010 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Competition is welcome"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Still GCC does support more.

Where is Java/Ada/Fortran support in LLVM?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Competition is welcome
by smitty on Sun 18th Apr 2010 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Competition is welcome"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Still GCC does support more.

Where is Java/Ada/Fortran support in LLVM?

GCC supports a lot more hardware platforms, as well as more languages. LLVM supports the most important ones, though, I mean you don't see a ton of people complaining that they can't use it with Ada on some random architecture that most people have never even heard of. I think LLVM is being smart by focusing on the core compiler before trying to add too many front and back ends.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by Zifre on Sun 18th Apr 2010 11:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

I am pretty sure you are incorrect on this point, IIRC Clang is only a C/C++/Obj-C front end for LLVM, with no aim to support other languages.

They may have meant that Clang has better source level understanding of C/C++/Obj-C and can provide better error messages and better analysis.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more languages that target LLVM than GCC. GCC is a sort of 'monolithic' compiler, so the only languages it supports are the ones on its homepage. There are many, many more obscure projects and languages that use LLVM. C/C++/Obj-C are just the only 'official' ones supported by LLVM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Competition is welcome
by Zifre on Sat 17th Apr 2010 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Competition is welcome"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

I really hope you're joking, because I was laughing at how stupid you sound...

The reality is that GCC is the king of the hill and LLVM is a second rate-knockoff.

Not really true... LLVM often beats GCC in performance. Sometimes, GCC wins, but it will be a lot easier to improve LLVM due to the more modern codebase.

People know and like GCC and aren't about to go screwing around with their codebases to appease losers like yourself.

It's a compiler. If you write standards-compliant code (which you should be doing anyway), all you have to do is change the Makefile. That's it.

The reality is people are coding for GCC nowdays and that's not going to change as as GCC is actively updated and supported.

People code for C/C++, not GCC. Sometimes people use GCC-extensions for convenience, but this can usually be fixed with small changes. It's not like you have to rewrite your project (ClangBSD is just some small patches on top of FreeBSD). Also, I think that there is probably more work going into LLVM now than GCC (I don't know if this is true, just a guess).

As for what the BSD crowd does, who really cares?

Um, all the people who use BSD? Apple?

They're the ones who are going to be running into all the grief by using LLVM, not the GCC userbase.

Grief? Like improved performance? Improved compiled compile times? Less licensing hassle?

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by Valhalla on Sat 17th Apr 2010 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Not really true... LLVM often beats GCC in performance. Sometimes, GCC wins, but it will be a lot easier to improve LLVM due to the more modern codebase.

From my own tests, and those I've seen online gcc beats llvm most often. That said gcc is alot more mature and sports a higher amount of optimizations, llvm will catch up in this regard.

It's a compiler. If you write standards-compliant code (which you should be doing anyway), all you have to do is change the Makefile. That's it.

Agreed, also llvm adopted gcc's flags so basically you only need to change CC and LD vars.

Also, I think that there is probably more work going into LLVM now than GCC (I don't know if this is true, just a guess).

I very much doubt this, there's alot of people working on gcc, and I'm pretty certain that there's alot more people paid to work on gcc. I know Red Hat, IBM, Suse etc all have people paid to develop gcc. What the future will hold is another matter entirely.

Grief? Like improved performance? Improved compiled compile times? Less licensing hassle?

Improved performance may or may not be a result (both compilers will continue to advance in this area) so that remains to be seen. In my tests compile times are better though I haven't really benchmarked it, but that's a definite plus. Licencing hassle? Never really understood this since Gcc's licence doesn't really traverse to code compiled with it. Also the new plugin architecture makes it possible for 3rd party non-gpl code to use gcc in a convenient way. llvm is alot more modern in it's core design (although gcc has improved alot in this respect over the years aswell) and is used for some very interesting stuff like jit compiling of shaders etc.

All in all, these are two excellent compilers and they're both open source and free. Sadly it seems we always end up in a spitting competition between the bsd/apple crowd and the linux/fsf crowd here and it's so sad. View these compilers technically and for the benefits they give you and your project. Personally for my projects code execution speed is paramount and I will use whichever compiler that makes my code run the fastest. Other projects may have other priorities and choose compiler toolchain based upon that. Having these two great options is a godsend, so why are people bickering and seemingly wishing one would vanish?

Reply Score: 6

v RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by chris_l on Sat 17th Apr 2010 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
RE[6]: Competition is welcome
by Valhalla on Sat 17th Apr 2010 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Competition is welcome"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Only a complete fool takes the results of benchmark testing seriously, especially where things like compliers and videocards come into play and the results are too often bogus.


Heh, are you kidding me? I benchmark a wide range of software which (apart from my own) include raytracers, 3d renderers, emulators, compressors and yes, these benchmarks reflect reality since they are benchmarked for what they are used for. When I get a 10% speed increase in 3d rendering it's not a pointless benchmark, it means that I will render 10% faster. If I get 15 frames faster in an emulator it means it emulates 15 frames faster. And no, the video card really doesn't come into play when I do these benchmarks (for those where video output actually makes a difference I rutn it off). All compilers routinely benchmark their code output to catch regressions in optimization and of course to catch faulty code generation.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Competition is welcome
by reduz on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Competition is welcome"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

GCC supports autovectorization, LLVM doesn't yet. This is why GCC is very superior in stuff like 3D/audio benchmarks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by Zifre on Sat 17th Apr 2010 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Licencing hassle? Never really understood this since Gcc's licence doesn't really traverse to code compiled with it. Also the new plugin architecture makes it possible for 3rd party non-gpl code to use gcc in a convenient way.

GCC is no problem for Linux. But BSD's like to have as little GPL code as possible. This is one of the main reasons for ClangBSD, to get rid of GPL code. Personally, I like the GPL, but I totally understand their reasoning.

In my tests compile times are better though I haven't really benchmarked it, but that's a definite plus.

Compile times with Clang are much, much faster than GCC. In all the tests I've done, Clang was faster than GCC. Most of the time it was at least twice as fast. Sometimes it would even be five times as fast. Even if GCC's output were 10% faster than Clang, I'd still use Clang for most things (especially if I were developing for the Linux kernel...)

All in all, these are two excellent compilers and they're both open source and free. Sadly it seems we always end up in a spitting competition between the bsd/apple crowd and the linux/fsf crowd here and it's so sad.

Agreed. I don't get why there is so much LLVM-hate and GCC-hate also. I'd say I'm from the 'Linux/FSF crowd', but I use both compilers all the time. Personally, I prefer LLVM due to its more modern design. I also write compilers, and LLVM is much easier to use than GCC's backend...

Edited 2010-04-17 19:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Competition is welcome
by Valhalla on Sat 17th Apr 2010 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Competition is welcome"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Compile times with Clang are much, much faster than GCC. In all the tests I've done, Clang was faster than GCC. Most of the time it was at least twice as fast. Sometimes it would even be five times as fast. Even if GCC's output were 10% faster than Clang, I'd still use Clang for most things (especially if I were developing for the Linux kernel...)


yes, during the development (particularly for large projects) compile time is often paramount. I wasn't aware that the difference was that big though, certainly makes a good case for llvm. During development I stick to -O0 or -O1 and higher optimizations are only used once final test builds begins so compile speeds are pretty decent but I sure wouldn't say no to a two to five time speed increase in compilation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Competition is welcome
by Oliver on Sat 17th Apr 2010 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Competition is welcome"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Many FOSS-devs don't like GCC. One of them is Linus Torvalds. Google for him and his rants about GCC. Google more and you'll find more problems, Google further and you'll be happy about any alternative at least if you're a developer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Competition is welcome
by zlynx on Mon 19th Apr 2010 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Competition is welcome"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Most of Linus' GCC rants are because of improvements in optimization that the GCC devs made.

Any developer is dreaming if they imagine that other compilers will not do the same improvements.

What Linus wants isn't an optimizing compiler. It's some kind of macro assembler. Which, honestly, might be a better choice for kernel development.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by sakeniwefu on Sun 18th Apr 2010 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Not that I disagree completely with you, but when you write platform specific code of the kind used in kernels and runtime libraries, ie OS-code, you often run off standards limits.
As clang emulates GCC there are not so many problems, but getting old platform dependent code to compile with clang is not as easy as "export CC=clang".
I haven't had any problem with standard C, though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by Zifre on Sun 18th Apr 2010 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Not that I disagree completely with you, but when you write platform specific code of the kind used in kernels and runtime libraries, ie OS-code, you often run off standards limits.

Yes, I definitely would not expect the Linux kernel or GLibC to compile with Clang right away. However, most applications C code should work - if not, the project is probably doing something bad (using non-standard extensions when they don't need to).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Competition is welcome
by vermaden on Sat 17th Apr 2010 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Competition is welcome"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

I wonder if sometime in the future we'll see an LLVM compiled version of OpenSolaris and including that as part of the system itself ;)

I doubt that, OpenSolaris recently tries to be Linux too much, so they will stick to Linux stuff instead.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Competition is welcome
by computeruser on Sat 17th Apr 2010 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Competition is welcome"
computeruser Member since:
2009-07-21

Isn't OpenSolaris built with Sun's C compiler anyway?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by tylerdurden on Sat 17th Apr 2010 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Yes it is, and it has its own userland (besides the GNU userland, which is optional actually). But I assume facts were not a priority for the previous poster.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by Lazarus on Sat 17th Apr 2010 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Isn't OpenSolaris built with Sun's C compiler anyway?


"A requirement for OpenSolaris is the ability to build a working set of bits using either recent Sun Studio tools or the GNU compiler collection."

http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/gcc

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Competition is welcome
by tyrione on Sat 17th Apr 2010 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Competition is welcome"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"While I don't see why this is such good news for FreeBSD itself, it is certainly good for the collective free software developer world. The presence of an additional fully-featured free compiler creates competition in the area, which will increase the quality of both compilers and benefit all developers and users.


I think the interesting part about LLVM is that it is non-GPL and the different approach to compiling when compared to other compilers that are out there especially when you consider the way in which Apple has used LLVM. There are benefits to FreeBSD in that hopefully it'll also force open source projects to purge GCC'ism's and GNU'isms out of the code bases so that they're more platform agnostic which end the end benefits everyone.

I wonder if sometime in the future we'll see an LLVM compiled version of OpenSolaris and including that as part of the system itself ;)
"


http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#license

Read up on the two areas of licensing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Competition is welcome
by tylerdurden on Sat 17th Apr 2010 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Competition is welcome"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Part of the aim of clang is to be compatible with gcc. So it will be used as a drop in replacement, with hopefully minimal impact on the codebase being compiled with it.

I never understood the aversion for gccisms. Can you expand on that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Competition is welcome
by kaiwai on Sun 18th Apr 2010 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Competition is welcome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#license

Read up on the two areas of licensing.


Here it is:

The C/C++ front-ends are based on GCC and must be distributed under the GPL. Our aim is to distribute LLVM source code under a much less restrictive license, in particular one that does not compel users who distribute tools based on modifying the source to redistribute the modified source code as well.


Clang will be under the more liberal licence since it replaces GCC - so what is the point of your original post then?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by tyrione on Sun 18th Apr 2010 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#license

Read up on the two areas of licensing.


Here it is:

The C/C++ front-ends are based on GCC and must be distributed under the GPL. Our aim is to distribute LLVM source code under a much less restrictive license, in particular one that does not compel users who distribute tools based on modifying the source to redistribute the modified source code as well.


Clang will be under the more liberal licence since it replaces GCC - so what is the point of your original post then?
"

Clang is not LLVM. They are separate projects.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by kaiwai on Sun 18th Apr 2010 05:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Clang is not LLVM. They are separate projects.


And GGC is a seperate product that will provided via dragonegg, so your point is moot. Clang is the default front end for LLVM and included with it; again, your point is move - run along and troll somewhere else.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Competition is welcome
by phoenix on Sat 17th Apr 2010 19:03 UTC in reply to "Competition is welcome"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

While I don't see why this is such good news for FreeBSD itself,


The less GPL-licensed software in a BSD OS, the better. Especially considering GPLv3 makes it impossible to upgrade a lot of the GPL'd software already in the system.

Since the GCC toolchain has moved to GPLv3, it can't be upgraded in the FreeBSD base, leaving it with GCC 4.2.1 for eternity.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Competition is welcome
by vivainio on Sat 17th Apr 2010 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Competition is welcome"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Since the GCC toolchain has moved to GPLv3, it can't be upgraded in the FreeBSD base, leaving it with GCC 4.2.1 for eternity.


That's their choice. GPLv3 is not legally incompatible with BSD operating systems, it's just that current project leads don't like the license for one reason or another.

Upside of this is that it gives LLVM some testing & mindshare; downside is that FreeBSD is left behind until LLVM reaches parity with newest gcc.

Reply Score: 2

Nicholas Blachford Member since:
2005-07-06

That's their choice. GPLv3 is not legally incompatible with BSD operating systems, it's just that current project leads don't like the license for one reason or another.


IANAL but GPLv3 is legally incompatible with a lot of things so it might actually be a legal issue. I know in the mobile industry GPLv3 is about as popular as a case of syphilis, the companies wont use it and the companies they deal with can't use it either. I personally know people who are forbidden to send out any code even just compiled with a GPLv3 compiler.

Upside of this is that it gives LLVM some testing & mindshare; downside is that FreeBSD is left behind until LLVM reaches parity with newest gcc.


Probably not for long. LLVM has mindshare from rather more then just BSD developers. There's some very big industry players contributing these days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by Valhalla on Sun 18th Apr 2010 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I personally know people who are forbidden to send out any code even just compiled with a GPLv3 compiler.

Sorry, seriously doubt this since the licence of the compiler has no effect on the licence of the generated binary.

Probably not for long. LLVM has mindshare from rather more then just BSD developers. There's some very big industry players contributing these days.

Apart from Apple, who are the other big industry players working on llvm? I know Google uses it for certain things but I'm not sure they actually contribute to it.

Edited 2010-04-18 02:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by _txf_ on Sun 18th Apr 2010 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I'll refer you to this page:

http://llvm.org/Users.html

The most extensive user by far is Apple, whose primary goal is to have osx compiled completely by Clang and remove gcc from the equation. See this:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/9

Edited 2010-04-18 02:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Competition is welcome
by Valhalla on Sun 18th Apr 2010 03:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Competition is welcome"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I'll refer you to this page:

http://llvm.org/Users.html

But you are missing the point, we are talking about contributing, not using. Red Hat, IBM, Novell and others employ programmers to work on GCC. I know Chris Lattner is being paid by Apple to work on llvm, and I would gather they have hired some others aswell to work on it, but I was interested in who the other "very big industry players contributing" are apart from Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by vivainio on Sun 18th Apr 2010 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I know in the mobile industry GPLv3 is about as popular as a case of syphilis, the companies wont use it and the companies they deal with can't use it either.


This makes sense for programs that are actually shipped in the devices. For a compiler, this is a knee-jerk reaction to fud (and I'm somewhat surprised that supposedly competent people fell for it).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by smitty on Sun 18th Apr 2010 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

There is one valid situation when the compiler license could matter - when you're embedding it into your own project. For example, writing a graphics driver that dynamically compiles shader programs at runtime. LLVM is also designed specifically for that kind of use, while GCC isn't, so using LLVM for that is kind of a no-brainer even disregarding the license.

Other than that, for 99.9% of uses it doesn't. You can compile a BSD program from MS C compiler, or Intel's, or GCC GPL2 or GPL3 and all still come out as valid BSD software. Doesn't matter what kind of text editor or compiler you use to create the program. This is not something that lawyers even debate about, it's not controversial, it's settled fact.

Edited 2010-04-18 08:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Competition is welcome
by strcpy on Sun 18th Apr 2010 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Competition is welcome"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Upside of this is that it gives LLVM some testing & mindshare; downside is that FreeBSD is left behind until LLVM reaches parity with newest gcc.


What are you talking about?

Majority of the so-called optimizations make no sense with operating systems. Here the correctness matters more (see also Linus' rants).

For third-party software obtained via the package system, gcc is always available. And will be required.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Competition is welcome
by Oliver on Sun 18th Apr 2010 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Competition is welcome"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>downside is that FreeBSD is left behind until LLVM reaches parity with newest gcc.

No, most people are using GCC4.x from ports if they need it.

And to answer your question why there is no GCC under the GPL v3 in base: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml#Let...

Finally it's about the freedom to do what you want to do with this very operating system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Competition is welcome
by smitty on Sun 18th Apr 2010 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Competition is welcome"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Did I miss it? All I saw in that press release was a bunch of talk about why the author likes BSD more than the GPL, because he thinks it's more free, and why companies that want to modify code might not like the GPLv3 (but then who actually modifies GCC anyway?).

This is the only part that even impacts what BSD itself is using rather than just marketing towards commercial users:

However, to be effective, the members of our community must engage on this issue, understand the importance of our licensing philosophy, and promote that philosophy to others. This is a unique opportunity. Please help us to make the most of it!



Listen, I have no problem with the BSD license. I have no problem with LLVM either, although I like it more for the modern design than the license it chose, which I really don't care about either way. But let's not spread FUD and just be honest that people are being political when they claim that GCC GPLv3 can't go into FreeBSD. It's no different than some linux distros that don't include any proprietary code for political reasons.

Edited 2010-04-18 20:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Competition is welcome
by Oliver on Mon 19th Apr 2010 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Competition is welcome"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

He doesn't think it is more free, he is telling a fact. More rules are equal to less freedom. And the goal of any BSD is to give you the possibility to use those operating systems according to your wishes. Remember? _Your wishes_! And if you use something GPL3 from the ports, then it's your very own decision! The do care about their different kind of audiences. Have a look e.g. on the FreeBSD mailinglists ... politics? Good luck while looking for it. Quiet the opposite you'll see for example on the Debian mailinglist ... politics en masse. FUD isn't a one-way ticket ...

Reply Score: 2