My understanding is that FreeBSD never used GCC post-GPLv3. I was being specific, not making a point about GPLv3 (arguments against which I also view as dumb, FWIW).
> My understanding is that FreeBSD never used GCC post-GPLv3.
Right, which has been a sign that with GPLv3, GCC was on the way out for sure: if its not being kept current, it's got a limited lifespan.
> I was being specific, not making a point about GPLv3 (arguments against which I also view as dumb, FWIW).
The GPLv3 itself was shaped very much by the FSFs analysis of what it thought business users would require (filtered through the FSF's ideology -- see the limits on the applicability of the antitivoization for a key example.)
That FreeBSD would be shaped by its view of what business users want, without constraint by the FSF's ideology, should not be surprising, nor should it be surprising that that conflicts in irreconcilable ways from the FSF's view made concrete in the GPLv3.
Open-source, unix-like OS's for users whose visions align more with the FSF's views are readily available. (And nothing stops a sufficiently-motivated party from making a GPLv3, FreeBSD-derived, GCC-using OS if they really want it.)
And there is no maintained GPL2 gcc, so they need an alternative. Also, the goal of the project is to provide a free operating system, and GPL software does not meet that goal, in either version. So naturally it is desirable to replace it when possible.
