3 ms·

gcc 4.2.1 was the last version to use GPLv2. Later versions switched to GPLv3, which the BSD guys couldn't swallow. From skimming the answer, I think it's prett

by 6ren 13y ago

gcc 4.2.1 was the last version to use GPLv2. Later versions switched to GPLv3, which the BSD guys couldn't swallow. From skimming the answer, I think it's pretty clear that the switch wasn't due to technical reasons, but that Clang/LLVM is now "good enough". It seems reasonable for FreeBSD to favour BSD licensing.

saurik 13y ago
I am not exactly certain what you are disagreeing with from what I said (as I agree that the only legitimate reason is licensing), so I guess I'll justt point out that the answer you apparently only "skimmed" has a section on "technical benefits" that specifically listed a "most notable" example being improved error messages.
- 6ren 13y ago
  Yes, I read that bit. Your objection seemed to be about the comparison with an older version of gcc, and I was noting why that comparison was legitimate, for them. EDIT Ah, I see how: you're talking about clang's website, whereas I'm talking about the submitted link, which is about FreeBSD. Note: the same argument also applies to other companies avoiding the GPLv3, which would explain why clang's website uses gcc 4.2 in its comparison. Though people here mentioned the GPLv3, no one noted that 4.2 was when the gcc license switched to it (I checked the HN comments). FWIW I've seen a GPL project eventually lose out to a BSD-style competitor, and the latter were surprisingly nasty about it, similar to what you're saying. This might be due to commercial interests vigorously supporting the BSD-style version for reasons of MONEY. But apart from nastiness, it makes sense that a more permissive license, being free to a wider audience, will be more popular. OTOH perhaps here, for a compiler, requiring people to give back (GPL) will work better? OTOH2, promising new tech always gets a certain ersatz caché - whether that promise is fulfilled or not.
  - saurik 13y ago
    The submitted link has a section on technical benefits to FreeBSD for making this switch which directly links to clang's website for what this submitted link's accepted answer considers the "most notable" technical benefit.

by 6ren 13y ago

saurik 13y ago

I am not exactly certain what you are disagreeing with from what I said (as I agree that the only legitimate reason is licensing), so I guess I'll justt point out that the answer you apparently only "skimmed" has a section on "technical benefits" that specifically listed a "most notable" example being improved error messages.

6ren 13y ago
Yes, I read that bit. Your objection seemed to be about the comparison with an older version of gcc, and I was noting why that comparison was legitimate, for them. EDIT Ah, I see how: you're talking about clang's website, whereas I'm talking about the submitted link, which is about FreeBSD. Note: the same argument also applies to other companies avoiding the GPLv3, which would explain why clang's website uses gcc 4.2 in its comparison. Though people here mentioned the GPLv3, no one noted that 4.2 was when the gcc license switched to it (I checked the HN comments). FWIW I've seen a GPL project eventually lose out to a BSD-style competitor, and the latter were surprisingly nasty about it, similar to what you're saying. This might be due to commercial interests vigorously supporting the BSD-style version for reasons of MONEY. But apart from nastiness, it makes sense that a more permissive license, being free to a wider audience, will be more popular. OTOH perhaps here, for a compiler, requiring people to give back (GPL) will work better? OTOH2, promising new tech always gets a certain ersatz caché - whether that promise is fulfilled or not.
- saurik 13y ago
  The submitted link has a section on technical benefits to FreeBSD for making this switch which directly links to clang's website for what this submitted link's accepted answer considers the "most notable" technical benefit.