|In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. Fortunately, few programs use those licenses...|
|Generally Open Source & Free Software don't work commercially.|
GCC is in near-term danger of losing its dominance in open-source C development; I would say the danger is imminent if not that people are innately conservative about major changes to their toolchains.
To keep its #1 spot, GCC needs to out-improve and out-compete clang. And not just on the technical level, either. "Using clang is easier than to fight with FSF policies" indeed. Unless that changes, GCC's future is as a legacy tool, a backwater that developers are exiting as fast as is practical.
The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us.
|Little Bobby Tables wrote:|
|who are ESR and RMS?|