3 ms·

The question was what's OpenBSD's issue with GPL3, not LLVM's.

• dleslie 10y ago
  Yes, it was; it seems you were the only person to notice that. :(
  • Gracana 10y ago
    From <https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html> https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html>: GNU General Public License, GPL, LGPL, copyleft, etc. The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system. For historical reasons, the OpenBSD base system still includes the following GPL-licensed components: the GNU compiler collection (GCC) with supporting binutils and libraries, GNU CVS, GNU texinfo, the mkhybrid file system creation tool, and the readline library. Replacement by equivalent, more freely licensed tools is a long-term desideratum. [edit] removed extra spaces to avoid HN's auto-formatter
    • qb45 10y ago
      Have read it too, but the question was what's wrong with GPL3 that isn't wrong with GPL2. Am I again the only one to notice? :) I'll give you folks a hint: the specific quote dleslie responded to says that OpenBSD stuck with GPL2 version of GCC to avoid GPL3. But, of course, this place being HN, people have attention span of an infant and forget the context by the time they catch something they'd like to respond to :p
      • eitland 10y ago
        I guess because to people who find GPL2 too strict one of the last things they want is a newer, even stricter version of the same?