3 ms·
So they forked Clang into their own closed source version? I guess you'll get things like this when you use a BSD license.
by ginko 11y ago
So they forked Clang into their own closed source version?
I guess you'll get things like this when you use a BSD license.
- feld 11y agoIf they have the manpower to stay in sync with clang's upstream that is great for them. If they don't, they're going to have to open source it to stay in sync with upstream. When it comes to large, fast moving projects the BSD license allows you to close the source but you're only going to obsolete yourself. This is what is happening with several vendors who took FreeBSD closed source: Isilon, Citrix, etc. Their FreeBSD forks are so far behind they are struggling and can't backport changes anymore. So they're forward-porting their proprietary enhancements or rewriting them again (eg NFS performance fixes, Xen Dom0) by pushing them back upstream to FreeBSD so they can move their product to a modern OS release. The fantasy you people have with "BSD lets them steal code and never give back again!" doesn't really work in practice. It saves them tons of time and money to cooperate with the community.
- geon 11y ago> I guess you'll get things like this when you use a BSD license. That is by design. As the other commenter said, they will either have to release fixes upstream, or be forced to re-apply them over and over just stay up to date.
- yrnkrn 11y agoWe frequently merge with llvm svn, last time three days ago. It is a pain but that's the price to keep up with such a dynamic project. We do upstream enhancements and bug fixes for clang and LLVM code, see the {cfe,llvm}-commits mailing lists.