| ▲ | blueflow 5 hours ago | |
I think that's less because of the license and more because people found patching gcc to be a big pain. | ||
| ▲ | tom_alexander 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
To be fair, GCC's design was motivated by the same thing as the license. They intentionally didn't modularize GCC so that it couldn't be used by non-free code. > Anything that makes it easier to use GCC back ends without GCC front ends--or simply brings GCC a big step closer to a form that would make such usage easy--would endanger our leverage for causing new front ends to be free. | ||
| ▲ | CalChris 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Correct, it’s not the license. | ||