Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by webaholic 1855 days ago
Why was the compromise made for LLVM 10 with the Apache license and not for GCC with the v3 GPL license?
3 comments
wahern 1855 days ago
No compromise, AFAIU. They felt they had no choice but to upgrade to a more modern compiler, and they preferred clang+APL2 over gcc+GPLv3. Apache 2.0 still violates their licensing policy. Technically, GPLv2 also violated their licensing policy. They historically used GPL'd software like gcc when there were no viable alternatives and doing without wasn't acceptable either.

EDIT: See https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=159514079929237&w=2

link
mwfunk 1855 days ago
I would imagine that many or most (or all?) OpenBSD developers consider the Apache license less than ideal but GPLv3 counterproductive or even malicious. Not a tough choice from that perspective. I'm not advocating for or against anything, just stating common reasoning amongst BSD folks.
link
protomyth 1855 days ago
Probably because of the drm code requirements and only having a choice between GPL v3 (gcc) or Apache 2 (llvm).
link