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

[Jean-Daniel Dupas]

Le 3 août 2012 à 10:20, Буров Дмитрий <bdv at inec.ru> a écrit :

>>> "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.
> 

If you have a good idea about how it should be phrased, just submit a patch.


-- Jean-Daniel