4 ms·

> a program that was compiled using LLVM? Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a c

> a program that was compiled using LLVM? Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been). End users are "screwed over" in this sense every time permissively-licensed free software is forked into proprietary versions that the users cannot do one of the following 1) Study (view the source) 2) Modify (edit the source) 3) Distribute (send the source or binary to another person) 4) Distribute modified versions of the software All of these freedoms include the freedom to hire someone else to do this for you, so even if you are not a developer, you still have the potential to benefit from free software, the same way all drivers benefit from the fact that any mechanic can service a car (not just the dealer).

e12e 13y ago
> Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. Yes and no -- most programs use a c runtime/standard lib (libc). While both allow the use of differenc libcs, it's not quite clear that the gcc toolchain doesn't have any implications for the executable. Just being (overly) pedantic, not trying to contribute to the FSF/GPL FUD. As for grand-parents point: the kind of scenarios where llvm is "scary" is for instance if a gpu vendor releases a closed compiler (or part of a compiler) for writing massively parallel code and/or shaders. Sometimes such a compiler might be called a driver, even if what it does is (among other things) compile code.
cwzwarich 13y ago
> Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been). Strictly speaking, the conditions of the GPL3 license apply to your GCC compiled code (using the GCC runtime library) unless it is compiled using an "eligible compilation process", i.e. no GPL-incompatible software in the middle: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html

e12e 13y ago

> Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. Yes and no -- most programs use a c runtime/standard lib (libc). While both allow the use of differenc libcs, it's not quite clear that the gcc toolchain doesn't have any implications for the executable. Just being (overly) pedantic, not trying to contribute to the FSF/GPL FUD. As for grand-parents point: the kind of scenarios where llvm is "scary" is for instance if a gpu vendor releases a closed compiler (or part of a compiler) for writing massively parallel code and/or shaders. Sometimes such a compiler might be called a driver, even if what it does is (among other things) compile code.

cwzwarich 13y ago

> Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been). Strictly speaking, the conditions of the GPL3 license apply to your GCC compiled code (using the GCC runtime library) unless it is compiled using an "eligible compilation process", i.e. no GPL-incompatible software in the middle: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html