3 ms·
AFAIR, OpenBSD has included the GPL-licensed gcc for a long time. They have a clear preference for more permissive license, but it would seem the GPL is not a p
by krylon 5y ago
AFAIR, OpenBSD has included the GPL-licensed gcc for a long time. They have a clear preference for more permissive license, but it would seem the GPL is not a problem as such, the OpenBSD developers just prefer more liberal alternatives where possible.
I'm not taking sides here, the OpenBSD developers have famously stopped supporting hardware when the vendors did not supply documentation under acceptable conditions. They obviously are very serious about the "Open" part.
- anthk 5y agoOpenBSD discarded base gcc. Now they are pro-ISC everywhere. They included gcc for convenience in some architectures.
- krylon 5y agoI know, but they included it for a pretty long time, so I think distributing GPL code as part of a BSD project is kosher, legally speaking. (Same goes for FreeBSD, although they, too, replaced gcc with clang some time ago.)
- chasil 5y agoClang is now used on the x86-64 variant of OpenBSD. I'm fairly confident that gcc is still available in the ports collection. On architectures that clang doesn't support, it's (likely) still gcc.
- krylon 5y agoI know. Last time I checked, gcc still was the default C compiler on architectures clang did not support, but it was a couple years ago, and they discontinued a few architectures since (vax, alpha, probably others?). Yes, gcc is still available through ports/packages, but the point was if it's okay to distribute GPL code as part of the base system if the base as a whole is BSD/MIT licensed.
- chasil 5y agoWithin the BSD realm, the GPL is frowned upon, and there is a current moving away from it.