> This is extremely misleading: Copyleft is about making sure everyone has the same rights. In theory... except in this case, the point is ensuring that people

> This is extremely misleading: Copyleft is about making sure everyone has the same rights. In theory... except in this case, the point is ensuring that people who don't share his political leanings can't use the product in a way he doesn't like (to generate an AST). It's not even about modifying gcc in this context, he doesn't want people to "misuse" it. It's entirely about telling people what they can and can't do with their software. Where is the freedom in that? > And here you prove you have no serious argument, by devolving to insults. I'm calling him a nutcase because he's being paranoid by crippling his own software to prevent a thing that people can already easily do with a competitor (clang). It's not like people are like "oh no gcc can't emit an AST I guess I'll give up and forget the entire venture" they just go "well I guess I'll go use clang instead"