News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by protomyth on Wednesday January 22, 2014 @04:59PM (#7105660)
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?
Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by fafner on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:53AM (#7107551)
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.
Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by protomyth on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:28AM (#7108332)
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.
Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by fafner on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:17AM (#7108635)
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.

Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by protomyth on Thursday January 23, 2014 @11:46AM (#7109254)
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.
Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by fafner on Thursday January 23, 2014 @01:51PM (#7110225)
They can be included in any project that can honour the GPL. Therefore it is a lie.
Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by protomyth on Thursday January 23, 2014 @05:29PM (#7111819)
"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.

Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by fafner on Thursday January 23, 2014 @08:45PM (#7112878)
> 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.

Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by protomyth on Thursday January 23, 2014 @11:07PM (#7113282)
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.

Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by fafner on Friday January 24, 2014 @04:27AM (#7114076)
So you admit you were lying.
Re:Clang and FSF's strategy by protomyth on Friday January 24, 2014 @11:10AM (#7115574)
Nope, and you cannot read. Dammit, I hate being suckered by a troll.