>Then i'll just say you don't understand me or the folks that work for me.
I'm sorry, Google is a publicly traded company. Are you really saying that if there was a clear business reason to release proprietary LLVM modules, Google would damage their stockholders and continue to release them freely?
I don't think I understand you. I never made that claim. I do think that corporations exist to make money. I don't think this is unreasonable, and I think it's unreasonable to ask me to take such a leap of faith in the opposite direction of common sense when considering any corporation, even one as benevolent as Google.
>It is in fact, possible with GCC, despite your claims. In fact, all you would have to do is change the C and C++ runtime libraries (which is entirely doable nowadays). That's it. The FSF knows you can interpose stuff legally as well.
The GCC is released under the GPLv3. There are some libraries inserted into compiled code with a linking exception, but it isn't clear to me how you could release a fork of the GCC under a proprietary license.
If you make that claim, you're going to have to explain it in greater detail, because you're essentially claiming that the GPLv3 is totally toothless. My apologies if I've misunderstood you.
>Forking again was considered, by all the companies and people involved. But it wasn't worth it to any of them to have to have political fights with the FSF over software development every couple years, when they just want to get shit done.
I understand the desire to get shit done, but in some cases, you have to realize that there are dangers associated with charging ahead regardless of potential consequences. There's a reason why nuclear plants are rigorously regulated, even if a lack of regulation would probably cause more shit to be done.
And actually, none of this discussion about GCC or the FSF or whatever is even relevant. The authors of LLVM could have just released it under the GPL. They chose not to.
So if that decision costs the free world its compiler, they're who I'll blame. Not Google, unless Google was involved with that decision.
I'm sorry, Google is a publicly traded company. Are you really saying that if there was a clear business reason to release proprietary LLVM modules, Google would damage their stockholders and continue to release them freely?
I don't think I understand you. I never made that claim. I do think that corporations exist to make money. I don't think this is unreasonable, and I think it's unreasonable to ask me to take such a leap of faith in the opposite direction of common sense when considering any corporation, even one as benevolent as Google.
>It is in fact, possible with GCC, despite your claims. In fact, all you would have to do is change the C and C++ runtime libraries (which is entirely doable nowadays). That's it. The FSF knows you can interpose stuff legally as well.
The GCC is released under the GPLv3. There are some libraries inserted into compiled code with a linking exception, but it isn't clear to me how you could release a fork of the GCC under a proprietary license.
If you make that claim, you're going to have to explain it in greater detail, because you're essentially claiming that the GPLv3 is totally toothless. My apologies if I've misunderstood you.
>Forking again was considered, by all the companies and people involved. But it wasn't worth it to any of them to have to have political fights with the FSF over software development every couple years, when they just want to get shit done.
I understand the desire to get shit done, but in some cases, you have to realize that there are dangers associated with charging ahead regardless of potential consequences. There's a reason why nuclear plants are rigorously regulated, even if a lack of regulation would probably cause more shit to be done.
And actually, none of this discussion about GCC or the FSF or whatever is even relevant. The authors of LLVM could have just released it under the GPL. They chose not to.
So if that decision costs the free world its compiler, they're who I'll blame. Not Google, unless Google was involved with that decision.