[cfe-dev] FUD in clang vs GCC comparison ?

[Буров Дмитрий]

>> "GCC is licensed under the GPL license. clang uses a BSD license, which
>> allows it to be used by projects that do not themselves want to be GPL."
>> http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html
>
> I believe the text to which you refer is about reusing parts of Clang in  
> other compiler-related projects.  It is not talking about the licensing  
> of programs compiled with Clang.
>
> For example, if I understand correctly, if you reused GCC's code to  
> build a front-end for a new programming language, that front-end would  
> need to be licensed under the GNU GPL.  If you built that same front-end  
> using Clang, then you could license it however you wanted provided that  
> you followed the restrictions in the BSD-style license that Clang uses.

Well, let's take a note how you used "REuse" verb through all your letter.

There can be other relatively narrow verbs used, like "integrate",  
"embed", "include", "base upon" and so forth.

But the verb "use" is most generic that could be put. Literally it covers  
just any kind of use.
So you would be uncomfortable putting it, for you know that there are kind  
of uses allowed and disallowed there and one should choose which uses he  
talks about to convey any specific idea.

I wanted to say that the phrase using such a broad verb turns just  
technically incorrect, but doing this i had to attentively reread it...
I just realized that there is no that "phrase", instead what coined are  
two formally separated phrases!

The text does not claim "clang ...differs from GCC in .. that can be used  
in non-GPL projects ... while GCC cannot". Formally parsing it, text does  
not claim *anything* about GCC use at all. Formally understanding, there  
is one claim that GCC is under GPL and there is another claim about clang  
can be used in non-GPL projects, those are different claims with  
absolutely no relation or common context between them. "Oh those stupid  
readers, they always read it wrong, no one knows why."

So is most probably what any lawyer would tell if brought to this.
Afterall FUD tactics was exactly coined about being formally correct and  
immune to laws, while implying something, but carefully avoiding directly  
telling so no responsibility for those words could be legally challenged.

> You are correct that both GCC and Clang can be used to compile  
> proprietary code.  I don't believe it was the intention of the person  
> who wrote that page to say otherwise.

Frankly, after i just reviewed the formal structure of those sentences  
with that accurately put artificial split, it is harder to me to believe  
that that wording was chosen unintentionally.

I probably look to you like annoying mistrustful person, and like that i  
see that page like annoying shady word play.

Surely we can never know the intentions of the original author. And our  
gut feelings of those would remain different and let them be. Guessing on  
that would be merely baseless speculations. So let's drop the intentions  
topic.


But the net result looks exactly like "U" of "Uncertainty" to me.
And i think those phrases would better be rephrased in correct and  
specifically narrow way.

Of course, if the point of the page is technical comparison rather than  
bashing GCC and averting its potential users from it.


PS: i also was a bit surprised by relating page discussion to cfe-dev  
list, i hoped there is webmaster mailbox or comments for pages or  
tracker/forum about site contents, but the only feedback link was cfe-dev,  
sorry for those who are bored or disguted by the topic raised.
-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/