Why Clang

Fernando Apesteguía fernando.apesteguia at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 06:13:41 UTC 2012

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Wojciech Puchar
<wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
>>> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
>> As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
>> often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3
>> libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
>> will have - according to the license - to be released as
>> v3 too.
> This word: "MAYBE" is most crucial here.

I don't see how GPLv3 is viral.

Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.

I'm not saying moving to clang is a bad idea. I just don't think the
viral license
argumentation is strong enough.

Can anyone provide an example of viral propagation of the license if we compile
the base system with a gpl v3 gcc?


[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LibGCCException

> wouldn't it be just simplest solution to ask GNU leader for clearing it out?
> i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
> soon.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list