3 ms·

Actually, their move from GCC to their own internally developed clang has way more to do with this than some walled-garden fantasy: http://archives.free.net.ph

Actually, their move from GCC to their own internally developed clang has way more to do with this than some walled-garden fantasy: http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20070721.195500.f37fa735.en.html http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20070721.195500.f37fa735... "GCC 4.2.1 will be the last release of GCC covered by version 2 of the GNU General Public License. All future releases will be released under GPL version 3." http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20071009.202219.6b725019.en.html http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20071009.202219.6b725019... "The compilers in this release are covered by GNU General Public License version 3."

rbanffy 16y ago
The GPLv3 does not apply to code compiled by GCC 4.2.1+. It applies to code you try to fork from it.
- CountSessine 16y ago
  Actually, if you developed and distributed a non-GPL compatible plug-in for GCC, the GCC license prevents you from linking to the gcc stdlib without distributing built code under the GPL. It's a peculiar exception - and Apple is almost certainly never going to be in violation of it. Still, the point is that Apple's lawyers are terrified that it could somehow taint iOS/OS X/iTunes if someone comes to believe that Apple might be in violation of it. Why take the chance? Clang is a compliant and fast c/c++ compiler at this point, and is mostly clean code (which is more than can be said of gcc).
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    As I noted elsewhere, I wonder what kind of patent protection if offers to downstream users of derived products. Since BSD-ish licenses don't mandate the passing of redistribution rights, I must assume the patent protection (like OpenJDK users enjoy - much to Oracle's non-enjoyment) isn't there. I am not saying Apple wants to patent-troll downstream developers, but that's a risk that's worth noting.

3 ms·

Actually, their move from GCC to their own internally developed clang has way more to do with this than some walled-garden fantasy: http://archives.free.net.ph

by CountSessine 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago
The GPLv3 does not apply to code compiled by GCC 4.2.1+. It applies to code you try to fork from it.
- CountSessine 16y ago
  Actually, if you developed and distributed a non-GPL compatible plug-in for GCC, the GCC license prevents you from linking to the gcc stdlib without distributing built code under the GPL. It's a peculiar exception - and Apple is almost certainly never going to be in violation of it. Still, the point is that Apple's lawyers are terrified that it could somehow taint iOS/OS X/iTunes if someone comes to believe that Apple might be in violation of it. Why take the chance? Clang is a compliant and fast c/c++ compiler at this point, and is mostly clean code (which is more than can be said of gcc).
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    As I noted elsewhere, I wonder what kind of patent protection if offers to downstream users of derived products. Since BSD-ish licenses don't mandate the passing of redistribution rights, I must assume the patent protection (like OpenJDK users enjoy - much to Oracle's non-enjoyment) isn't there. I am not saying Apple wants to patent-troll downstream developers, but that's a risk that's worth noting.