3 ms·

I mean, in the case of a C compiler your code is mere data so license compatibility isn't really the concern. BSD projects don't care for the anti-tivoization

I mean, in the case of a C compiler your code is mere data so license compatibility isn't really the concern. BSD projects don't care for the anti-tivoization clause in the GPLv3 because it restricts where the software can be deployed, the GPLv2 was acceptable because there was no better alternative at the time and, again code was data in the case of a compiler.

Someone 9y ago
"In the case of a C compiler your code is mere data " A compiler tool chain typically _does_ insert code that you didn't write. For example, seen from the point of the loader, the entry point of an executable is not main. Similarly, one could argue that the function prologs and epilogs that gcc generates fall under the GPL. Because of that, I think it is understandable that the BSD projects aren't willing to bet the existence of their projects "you code is mere data".
- saghm 9y ago
  > Similarly, one could argue that the function prologs and epilogs that gcc generates fall under the GPL. Can you really not compile code with gcc and have the result not be GPL licensed? This seems a bit dubious to me, although I honestly don't know enough to know if it's true or not
  - Someone 9y ago
    It is unlikely, and would be 100% unintended (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.en.html), but the GPL hasn't been battle-tested in court, and GPLv3 even less so. Judging by their behaviors, it seems both Apple's lawyers and those of some of the BSDs seem wary to bet the firm on GPLv3. Quite possibly, that's just caution.