Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Oct 2007 21:06 UTC, submitted by Valour
Thread beginning with comment 278410
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Vast majority of GNU GCC contributors will prefere GPL licence not BSD for obvious reasons.
I'm an active contributor to GCC, and I greatly prefer the 2-clause BSD license over the GPL.
The problem is that if you need/want to fix a bug in GCC, you then have to assign Copyright to the FSF and a submit to the GPL.
That is just not true. Its a rather bold assumption based on little evidence I would say. The truth is that makefiles are _NOT_ a GCC only thing. If this is your only evidence then you should do some more research because its a flat out lie.
Read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makefile
IIRC the Windows source code was leaked though Mainsoft. Mainsoft has a (commercial) product that's simmilar to WINE, but Mainsoft licensed the actual Windows source code from Microsoft to do this. It's not unlikely that Mainsoft ported the requred parts of the Windows source to GCC.
What is used to compile Windows? GCC (Really! After examining leaked windows source code, it was found to me gcc makefiles and all).
Actually, that's not quite possible. GCC compiles to the ELF file format, while Windows' kernel uses the PE file format. If Microsoft did use GCC to compile Windows, the resulting binary wouldn't be compatible with their bootloader.
(On the other hand, it's possible to compile Linux as a PE in Visual Studio, and theoretically, even get it booting under GRUB. I've pondered compiling Linux as a PE just to compare compile quality of the two.)







Member since:
2005-09-27
One step forward to release the free world from the GNU monopoly.