Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 22:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 503082
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: FSF-like Ideology against GPL
by 0brad0 on Fri 13th Jan 2012 03:06
in reply to "RE[3]: FSF-like Ideology against GPL"
Stop with the bs, the ONLY reason the BSD's didn't upgrade past 4.2.1 is because of the GPLv3 licence and as others have already stated this was because of companies supporting BSD having a 'no GPLv3 policy' (most likely due to the TIVO-ization clause).
Also this relates to what the BSD's ship with, all later GCC versions have been readily available through ports so those who have no problem with GPLv3 and wants to enjoy benefits of later versions like better optimization/faster compilation can get them.
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. It also goes beyond just the license when
it comes to using and maintaining the compiler.
The base OS compiler is what counts the most. It's a concept that seems to be lost on Linux people.
RE[5]: FSF-like Ideology against GPL
by Valhalla on Fri 13th Jan 2012 03:20
in reply to "RE[4]: FSF-like Ideology against GPL"
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?





Member since:
2006-01-24
The project needs an up to date and maintainable compiler/toolchain that meets the projects requirements and with GCC past 4.2.1/binutils past 2.17 that is no longer possible. It's a much bigger issue than just some companies having an issue with GPL'd code.
Stop with the bs, the ONLY reason the BSD's didn't upgrade past 4.2.1 is because of the GPLv3 licence and as others have already stated this was because of companies supporting BSD having a 'no GPLv3 policy' (most likely due to the TIVO-ization clause).
Also this relates to what the BSD's ship with, all later GCC versions have been readily available through ports so those who have no problem with GPLv3 and wants to enjoy benefits of later versions like better optimization/faster compilation can get them.