When gcc43 is expected to be in base?
kline at thought.org
Tue Aug 5 03:59:29 UTC 2008
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 05:20:10PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Gary Kline wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:52:37PM -0400, Gerard wrote:
> >>Since it appears to be apparent that newer software might very well
> >>released under the GPLv3 license, it might behoove the FreeBSD team
> >>rethink its ideas or beliefs regarding the inclusion of such software
> >>into the base system. At the very least, it might very well make life
> >>easier for end users who need the support that programs using that
> >>license are now offering.
> > I must have missed something along the way, because I don't
> > understand what the "preferences" are to *not* use 4.3. I have
> > it buiilt and runing here on my mail desktop and at least one
> > other FBSD server.
> > Clues, please.
> Oh, there's nothing wrong with you as an individual running gcc-4.3 if
> you like.
> Nor is there anything wrong with the GPLv3 license-- it's well-crafted
> and handles certain technical issues resulting from varied legal
> systems quite well compared to most other licenses (eg, clause 17 for
> many European jurisdictions which do not permit one to completely
> disclaim liability), *provided* one is working on completely open
> However, anyone who needs to do things with cryptography and signing
> is going to find GPLv3 clauses 3 and 6 unworkable. FreeBSD (and
> NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc) are attractive for people building embedded
> systems because they are (mostly) not GPL(v2)-encumbered, and adopting
> GPLv3 code would make that problem worse.
[[ paragraphs deleted. (*mumble*) ]] yeah, i undersand the
larger picture. and i'll stop right here.
thanks for the dope-slap.
Gary Kline kline at thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix
More information about the freebsd-questions