Why Clang

[Waitman Gobble]

On Jun 21, 2012 11:23 AM, "Wojciech Puchar" <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for
non-GPL executables
>> is limited to what hey call "eligible compilation processes", what rules
out using
>> proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC functionality
with non-GPL
>> tooling and extensions.
>> Please note that this is indeed not tested in court. Therefore, reality
may turn out
>> even more interesting. That's why a lawyer's answer should always be "it
depends". :)
>
>
> GNU GPL is even worse that i ever dreamed (in worst horror).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"

I have seen a few instances which are "risky" IMHO... or at least
interesting to ponder.. one is a claim that GPLv3 enables the vendor to
"require" the use of their trademark logo (flowplayer)... which opens up
other legal issues i think, and another, i recently purchased a router, in
the package was a small piece of paper stating the device includes GPL
software, and if i want the source i need to write (snail mail) their legal
department and explain why i want it. (d-link).

but i agree the issues have not been legally decided AFAIK. anyway, i think
a BSD licensed FreeBSD operating system works  for me.

Waitman Gobble
San Jose California USA