3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoStill some companies try hard to avoid GPLv3, see Apple, who either provide old GPLv2 licensed software or invest in BSD/MIT replacements.
- o11c 1y agoAnd 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 agoyou 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 agothe 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 agoThe main problem with GPLv3 specifically from the perspective of various commercial vendors is the patent clause.