> GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using.

That's simply not true.

So, if Apple had incorporated GCC's parser into Xcode like they have included clang's, what would have been the effect?

They would have to honour GCC's license, like they have to do with clang's license or any other piece of software.

And would honoring that license require them to release the source for the non-GPL licensed parts of Xcode and perhaps require some action on any patents implemented in that non-GPL code?

They have to honour the license. Which provides and guarantees basic freedoms. But it allows the code to be reused in any project honouring the license. So your initial statement is false.

Nope, my basic statement is true. You didn't answer the question and by "code" you don't just mean the GPL code. The GPL tries to affect all code in the project not just the GPLed code.

Your basic statement is false: "GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects". That's simply a lie.

> You didn't answer the question

Because it's completely irrelevant.

They cannot be included because they take over everything else. It is not a lie and the questions I have asked backed that up. GPL imposes things on code that is not GPL.

They can be included in any project that can honour the GPL. Therefore it is a lie.

"They can be included in any project that can honour the GPL."

So, no and not a lie. Why should any license dictate what happens to code that was not written by the authors of that code? Why should I pay more honor to GPL code than any other? So, no, much like a relative that drinks all the beer when visiting, the GPL cannot be included except in limited circumstances.

> So, no

So, yes. You are simply talking bullshit because of some irrational GPL hate. If you cannot honour the license of a piece of software then you can't use it. Doesn't matter if it's free software like GCC or some commercial library you paid a shitload of money for. Stop being dishonest and irrational.

Last time, I have no problem honoring a license on code written by others EXCEPT when the license presumes to tell other developers that they must do something with code they wrote in separate and not patches made to the original code. This is not irrational or bull. This presumption that the GPL code should impose itself on other code to force it all to be GPL is impolite at best.

I have no hate for the GPL. It is a license for a community that loves it, but saying GPL code can be freely included in other works is a very strange definition of free. It is also poor for teaching as it brings a burden on the future works of students if they directly use the taught code directly. It is a license that should be evaluated like any other, but it imposes burdens on more than the source written under it.

So you admit you were lying.

Nope, and you cannot read. Dammit, I hate being suckered by a troll.