3 ms·
You get it all wrong. He is not saying "Google will not contribute back to LLVM" per se. He said "Any entity can leverage LLVM without contributing back. It's v
by kasabali 12y ago
You get it all wrong. He is not saying "Google will not contribute back to LLVM" per se. He said "Any entity can leverage LLVM without contributing back. It's very nice Google is playing fair with the community, but not all commercial entities will be that friendly, and LLVM's licence makes it easier. He is not attacking Google and there is no reason to take it "personally" and entering to the "defensive mode" immediately.
- DannyBee 12y ago" He is not saying "Google will not contribute back to LLVM" per se" Except for the part where that it was literally said, yeah, ... "He is not attacking Google and there is no reason to take it "personally" and entering to the "defensive mode" immediately." Google was specifically called out as "sure to require you to use proprietary modules".I don't know how you can read it any other way.
- kasabali 12y agoPretty simple. He has a claim: "Over time, using Clang effectively will require proprietary modules from ...", then he starts to give some examples, "... Google, Apple, et all". He is not targeting Google specifically, nor any company. He just points out to a possibility, which is legally allowed by license of the project so nobody can guarantee it won't happen without going into legal troubles. I read that as "He is just giving examples for technology companies that use LLVM somehow" while you seem to read that as "OMG he's attacking Google specifically and intentionally and I must defend it immediately!", well, except that he didn't. There is no need to assume bad faith. Just relax a bit and keep up the good work you do on compilers.
- tedks 12y agoI think this is a fair rephrasing of my claim.