3 ms·
> If LLVM were GPL'd then Apple would not be using it. Full stop. Incorrect. Apple was perfectly happy using the GPLv2 based gcc for years and years and years.
by __david__ 13y ago
> If LLVM were GPL'd then Apple would not be using it. Full stop.
Incorrect. Apple was perfectly happy using the GPLv2 based gcc for years and years and years. The thing that made them strike out and look for something new was the GPLv3 [1]. If LLVM were GPLv2 Apple would have no reason not to use it.
Incidentally, does anyone know which part of the GPLv3 they don't like? Is it the patent clause or the Tivoization clause? My personal feeling is it must be the patent clause since none of the interesting GPL stuff (bash, Emacs, or the unix command line stuff) even ships on iOS.
[1] Also the same reason they're stuck shipping the 5 year old version of Emacs (22.1) and Bash (3.2) in their current release.
- pjmlp 13y ago> Incorrect. Apple was perfectly happy using the GPLv2 based gcc for years and years and years. Not really, Steve Jobs always disliked it, because FSF forced them to open source Objective-C when NeXT used gcc as their backed. http://www.anonymous-insider.net/free-software/research/1989/0919.html http://www.anonymous-insider.net/free-software/research/1989...
- kps 13y agoNot to mention the 1989–1995 FSF boycott of Apple.
- eridius 13y agoIf LLVM were GPLv2 Apple would not have had any incentive to move to it over continuing their efforts with the fork of GCC 4.2.