Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Nov 2012 23:50 UTC, submitted by Joel Dahl
FreeBSD "I've made clang the default on x86 systems. There will probably be a few bumps as we work out the last kinks including a ABI issue for i386 system libraries, but the transition is expected to be fairly smooth for most users."
Permalink for comment 541592
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: why?
by demetrioussharpe on Fri 9th Nov 2012 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
demetrioussharpe
Member since:
2009-01-09

"[q]To me It always smelled like a political decision and not a technical one... Apple wanted a BSD-licensed compiler and not a GPL one so they spent zillons of dollars creating a new one and alienating the open source community.


You think Apple is the only organization that doesn't want a GPL licensed compiler? Stop & ask yourself why a (Free|Net|Open|Dragonfly|PC)-BSD based OS wouldn't want a BSD licensed compiler. Those guys don't just use BSD-licensed software on a whim. They believe in that model of software licensing & I highly doubt that they'd want to be at the mercy of the GPL license model --which changes on a whim, the same way that GPL code changes on a whim.
"

The only real reason for GPLv3 is software patents, which didn't exist when the GPL was first conceived. You can't really blame them for having to update it. [/q]

I think you're missing my point. The OS in question is a BSD OS. The OS primarily uses the BSD license. So, obviously, they favor the BSD license over the GPL license (regardless of version). So, why wouldn't they want a compiler that's BSD licensed???

Reply Parent Score: 2