Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 22:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 503088
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-24
It's not bs. GPLv3 is not acceptable for the base OS. I can't help it if you cannot accept that the project has requirements and actually sticks to the requirements.
Yes, GPLv3 was the problem.
It also goes beyond just the license when
it comes to using and maintaining the compiler.
What problem occured with using GCC after 4.2.1 that was NOT GPLv3, please elaborate.
The base OS compiler is what counts the most. It's a concept that seems to be lost on Linux people.
Again, what problems beyond 4.2.1 did GCC introduce apart from a licence shift to GPLv3?