[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: clang and FSF's strategy
From: |
Michael Witten |
Subject: |
Re: clang and FSF's strategy |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:03:58 +0000 |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso wrote:
> The fact that these non-free tools are not based on gcc are a
> testament to how proprietary software developers cannot plug into gcc,
> and how clang is fostering non-free software.
What does it matter whether clang fosters non-free software if clang *also*
fosters free software? Indeed, non-free software inspires a lot of free
software, anyway.
Apparently, gcc isn't fostering much of anything, except for a desire to
replace it with llvm/clang.
Where there is the least friction, there is the most freedom.
- clang and FSF's strategy, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, David Kastrup, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Alexandre Oliva, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Ian Lance Taylor, 2014/01/21
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy, Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso, 2014/01/22
- Re: clang and FSF's strategy,
Michael Witten <=