This seems to be a terrible misinformed comment. Not only isn't there really a problem with using GPL tools in a commercial context, as long as they don't becom

This seems to be a terrible misinformed comment. Not only isn't there really a problem with using GPL tools in a commercial context, as long as they don't become part of your work product. GCC is probably used to compile a large percentage of commercial software. And I'm sure you're writing comments in Chrome, yet expect to retain the copyright on those words. But what makes this really asinine is that Julia isn't even GPL: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/LICENSE.md Moreover, since I've been seeing this kind of hostility towards the GPL more and more often: it should be somewhat obvious to everyone that the current ecosystem of widely available, highest-quality OSS stacks is a rather surprising development. There are certainly parallel universes where parallel computing requires you to buy the compiler from IBM, and URIs end not in .html, but in .doc. The GPL and its advocates aren't the only ones who created this, but I'm pretty sure they were at least necessary. That includes not just the software they created, but also the force of the moral argument for software freedom they made.