Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chii 3242 days ago
> Unlike gcc the license for llvm/clang is more liberal so if they want private internal tooling they can still do that also.

How can that be true? The definition of private internal tooling is that it's not publically distributed, and therefore, GPL isn't a concern.

Unless you distribute the result of your modifications to GCC, both clang and GCC are viable bases from which you make your internal tooling.
2 comments
wildmusings 3242 days ago
Wanting to distribute something externally does not mean that you want to release it publicly. Lots of "internal" tools are distributed to teams at partner companies and contractors, for example.

And more generally, the internal tool of today can become the hit add-on to your existing product of tomorrow, or a new product line. You want to retain flexibility.

Legal departments aren't just being paranoid when they insist on avoiding GPL-licensed code if at all possible.

link
pjmlp 3242 days ago
Which is why the *BSDs have a bigger amount of contributions than GPL-licensed operating systems.
link
wolfpld 3242 days ago
> both clang and GCC are viable bases from which you make your internal tooling.

License is not the only factor determining usability of a compiler wrt interfacing with external tools. GCC was deliberately designed to prevent such usage.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NURiiQatBXA at 2:22 for a direct quote from RMS on this topic.

link