> Thus for example, the venerable "gcc" compiler has severe bugs which were reported many years ago, but which will probably never be fixed. This, despite the f

> Thus for example, the venerable "gcc" compiler has severe bugs which were reported many years ago, but which will probably never be fixed. This, despite the fact that the code for it is available and anyone could fix it at will. Nobody has, probably nobody will -- because the gcc code is extraordinarily difficult to grok. So the "many eyes" argument for open-source and GPL is not overly convincing to me. It looks like this really just identifies that "hard problems are hard", ignores any actual benefits, and incorrectly projects that onto a "license problem". Anyone is free to license how they like, but this isn't a strong argument for that.