3 ms·

For what it's worth, the leverage did work, just not forever. It was a play with a limited lifetime. It didn't necessarily need to shake out that way, probably

For what it's worth, the leverage did work, just not forever. It was a play with a limited lifetime. It didn't necessarily need to shake out that way, probably if GCC was slightly easier to write for but not too easy people would have invested more. It took a major investment to create a competing product.

owlbite 1y ago
I thought GPLv3 adoption by GCC was what really lit the flames on moving to llvm by commercial entities?
- tehjoker 1y ago
  You might know this history better than me.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  you only need to worry about GPLv3 if you are modifying gcc in source and building it and distributing that. Just running gcc does not create a GPLv3 infection. And glibc et al are library licensed so they don't infect what you build either, most especially if you are not modifying its source and rebuilding it.
  - johannes1234321 1y ago
    Still some companies try hard to avoid GPLv3, see Apple, who either provide old GPLv2 licensed software or invest in BSD/MIT replacements.
  - o11c 1y ago
    And what we've seen from e.g. Apple is that "make a private fork and only distribute binaries" is exactly what they wanted the whole time.
  - wmf 1y ago
    you only need to worry about GPLv3 if you are modifying gcc in source and building it and distributing that. That's the context here. If you build a new compiler based on GCC, GPL applies to you. If you build a new compiler based on LLVM it doesn't.
    - fsckboy 1y ago
      the context here doesn't actually specify whether we are talking about companies using llvm sources to create proprietary compilers (or maybe integrated with a proprietary IDE) or using llvm to quickly bootstrap and craft a compiler for a new processor, new language, etc., where they will distribute the source to the compiler anyway but such a compiler or IDE would not GPLv3 infect it's users' target sources and binaries.
      - int_19h 1y ago
        The main problem with GPLv3 specifically from the perspective of various commercial vendors is the patent clause.
kcexn 1y ago
GCC has come a long way in terms of features and complexity since the 90's/00's when Stallman made these decisions. Today, building a compiler from scratch would be a huge undertaking, and would be prohibitively expensive for most organizations regardless of licensing. If the requirement was still just to implement a "simple" C89 compliant compiler, and I was worried about software freedom. The GPL is probably still a good bet.

owlbite 1y ago

I thought GPLv3 adoption by GCC was what really lit the flames on moving to llvm by commercial entities?

tehjoker 1y ago
You might know this history better than me.
fsckboy 1y ago
you only need to worry about GPLv3 if you are modifying gcc in source and building it and distributing that. Just running gcc does not create a GPLv3 infection. And glibc et al are library licensed so they don't infect what you build either, most especially if you are not modifying its source and rebuilding it.
- johannes1234321 1y ago
  Still some companies try hard to avoid GPLv3, see Apple, who either provide old GPLv2 licensed software or invest in BSD/MIT replacements.
- o11c 1y ago
  And what we've seen from e.g. Apple is that "make a private fork and only distribute binaries" is exactly what they wanted the whole time.
- wmf 1y ago
  you only need to worry about GPLv3 if you are modifying gcc in source and building it and distributing that. That's the context here. If you build a new compiler based on GCC, GPL applies to you. If you build a new compiler based on LLVM it doesn't.
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    the context here doesn't actually specify whether we are talking about companies using llvm sources to create proprietary compilers (or maybe integrated with a proprietary IDE) or using llvm to quickly bootstrap and craft a compiler for a new processor, new language, etc., where they will distribute the source to the compiler anyway but such a compiler or IDE would not GPLv3 infect it's users' target sources and binaries.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      The main problem with GPLv3 specifically from the perspective of various commercial vendors is the patent clause.

kcexn 1y ago

GCC has come a long way in terms of features and complexity since the 90's/00's when Stallman made these decisions. Today, building a compiler from scratch would be a huge undertaking, and would be prohibitively expensive for most organizations regardless of licensing. If the requirement was still just to implement a "simple" C89 compliant compiler, and I was worried about software freedom. The GPL is probably still a good bet.