It's a bit strange that you blame then GPL when it is just as much the authors of the incompatible licenses' fault, especially when in some cases it's completely their fault because the authors of those licenses deliberately wrote them with the intent of being incompatible with the GPL. Additionally I find it strange that you fault the values of the GPLv3 for Apple ditching gcc, rather than faulting Apple for being an abusive proprietary company that has problems with the values that the GPLv3 imposes. As if the FSF should be working to please Apple?

Everyone else gets along; GPL is the outlier.

No, if you'll re-read my post you'll see how I described that even if you view this issue in a vacuum, the other parties are still at fault as well. Apple especially does not want you to "get along," and especially not if you're releasing something on their app store. Now please stop this blind hatred and FUD spreading, it's not constructive.

Apple implemented a full AOT/JIT/Disassembler (LLVM), debugger (lldb), static code analyzer (clang), C and C compiler (clang), and c++11 stdlib, all under a free MIT-like OSS license.

There all built as libraries, can be linked against to build IDEs, JITs, etc etc etc.

So how is it that they don't get along, exactly?

That instance is fine. It certainly is nice that they released it under a free software license, it would have been better if they used copyleft, but there is nothing wrong with the license they chose. They part where they don't want you to "get along" is the part where they distribute proprietary software, sell devices with proprietary hardware locks, forbid use of the GPL (and other free software licenses) on their app store, etc. See this blog entry for an example of how this has specifically applied in one case to some FSF-copyrighted GNU software: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

Why would it be better if LLVM and clang were copyleft? Then it couldn't be used in other products as a library, and the entire industry would be set back to where we were with GCC in the first place -- unable to fully leverage our tools to push the state of the art forward.

It could be used as a library as long as the other projects also made their software copyleft. The goal of copyleft is freedom for the users, not "pushing the state of the art forward." If they reject certain software because of copyleft they aren't being denied freedom, they were offered freedom and they refused.

> It could be used as a library as long as the other projects also made their software copyleft.

That never happened. On the other hand, LLVM has lead to a tool renaissance.

> The goal of copyleft is freedom for the users, not "pushing the state of the art forward."

Users already have that freedom. They can simply refuse to use proprietary software. They don't require a paternalistic GPL license to 'enforce' a freedom they already had.

It has happened in many cases. Many companies have used, modified and contributed to GCC in the path with no complaints. The whole anti-copyleft thing did not start until recently, because of increased resistance from companies like Apple who have an active anti-freedom political agenda.

The simple act of refusing to use proprietary software does not give users freedom in software, it just prevents them from being subjugated by that one particular piece of proprietary software. Copyleft is also not necessary to have freedom, but it is pragmatic in that it leverages copyright in an attempt to further the political goal of freedom. It would be nice if this didn't have to be done, but we cannot ignore the issue of copyright, it will not go away quietly.

> It has happened in many cases. Many companies have used, modified and contributed to GCC in the path with no complaints.

Hardly. Companies have complained plenty, but escaping the network effects of the GPL was expensive enough that they couldn't do much about it.

> The simple act of refusing to use proprietary software does not give users freedom in software, it just prevents them from being subjugated by that one particular piece of proprietary software.

Why not? If they want open-source software, they can use it. There, they're free.

> Copyleft is not necessary to have freedom, but it is pragmatic in that it leverages copyright in an attempt to further the pro-freedom political agenda.

By attempting to enforce a communist ideal of shared ownership of the means of production. Most reasonable people don't consider that to be 'freedom'.

The only groups that wish to "escape the network effects of the GPL" are proprietary companies that wish to attack their own users' freedoms. The fact that you have a choice of being able to reject proprietary software is not the issue at hand, because people always have that choice, and it is good that we do. The issue is why you should make the choice and what ramifications it has.

>shared ownership of the means of production

I mentioned this in a different thread but this has no context in the current discussion, the "means of production" are a complete non-sequitur in relation to software. Free software isn't "communist," it simply rejects authoritarianism.

Actually, as an liberally licensed open-source author, I wish to "escape the network effects of the GPL" because I want proprietary companies to use my software, too.

That means I have to escape the GPL despite your wanting to force me to participate. You can keep claiming this isn't communism, except that it exactly parallels the Marxist notions of shared ownership.