> clang is actually open source (more open) via a MIT license instead of gpl Here's the obligatory retort that open source != free software: GPL (et al) is abo

> clang is actually open source (more open) via a MIT license instead of gpl Here's the obligatory retort that open source != free software: GPL (et al) is about guaranteeing end users' freedom to tinker, as opposed to MIT (et al), which are about allowing developers to use someone else's work in their product without restrictions. GPL enforces a share-and-share-alike ethos, while MIT asserts do-what-thou-wilt. They're not the same end goals.