Imagine the Linux Kernel getting rid of all the gcc crap and

>>60546027
That's a nice outlook, but I'd prefer getting rid of the other parts of GNU, in particular Autotools and gettext.

File: derpfuuka.png (35KB, 171x207px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 171x207px

>he fell for the clang meme

>>60546073
>in particular Autotools and gettext.
So much this.

File: 1495513413320.jpg (106KB, 688x1135px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 688x1135px

>>60546027
>>60546073
y tho?

>>60546134
As for gettext and autotools: Because they are arcane tools that were a bad idea back when they were made and - typical for GNU - their implementation sucks and they aren't working on other platform than muh POSIX.
>inb4 gettext has a windows port
It craps itself in some Unicode constellations.

File: 1258200989703.jpg (51KB, 714x545px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 714x545px

>>60546134
Because GNU needs to die of course.
>>60546073
This guy gets it.

>another braindead GNU hater

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

Keep suing low-level-goy-machine and develop it for google and amazon FOR FREE.

>>60546224
>Another actually non-crap tech lover
you mean.

>>60546224
>Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store
for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*)
What, really?

Let's get rid of glib and replace it with musl.

>>60546303
not that guy, but the GPL is apparently incompatible to the ebb store.

>>60546027
It can though, just need patches.

>>60546027
True. You should be able to compile a kernel written in C using only a standards-compliant C99 compiler.
I'm not even talking about cling-clang here, pcc should suffice.

>>60546224
>The values of free software are fundamentally
different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal.

Dropped.

>>60546342


If you mean taking software that you do not hold copyright to, and which you are only allowed to use and copy because it was licensed under the GNU GPL, then no.

The FSF spells it out here: section 6 of the GPL says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", and the Mac App Store Terms of Service explicitly add other restrictions.

The Software Freedom Law Center's legal representative confirmed this: the App Store agreements, on all platforms, are incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Apple seems to be disallowing GPL programs in the App Store as a matter of policy, but if you managed to sneak one through, then the author of the program could go after you for violating their copyright.

A completely different case is where you hold the copyright to a piece of software. In that case, you are welcome to distribute it under more than one license. (For example, Firefox was for a while licensed under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL. MySQL is licensed under the GPL and also a proprietary license.) So if you sell a program through the Mac App Store, you can also release it under the GPL -- assuming you are allowed to do each of these things independently.

(If you wanted to use somebody else's GNU GPL-licensed code in one of the App Stores, you could write to the copyright holder and see if they're willing to sell you an alternative license to their software. They're under absolutely no obligation to do this, of course.)

VLC ran into trouble (I think) because copyright for the software was held by many different people, and the whole program was only allowed to be distributed under the GPL. Some programs sidestep such issues by requiring contributors to assign copyright to them, but most don't.
https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/is-it-possible-to-have-gpl-software-in-the-mac-app-store

File: linus-torvalds-400x298.jpg (45KB, 390x220px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 390x220px

Imagine being the Linux Kernel in that machine and having to be all like "damn LLVM CLANG, you fuckin' fine, all sexy with your high speed and horrific public domain license. I would totally compile with you, both my resource manager and my device drivers." when all it really wants to do is fuck another consumer with Stallman's agenda. Like seriously imagine having to be the Linux kernel and not only sit in that machine while LLVM Clang flaunts its disgusting machine code in front of you, the favourable optimization barely concealing its permissive license and Apple forced malware, and just sit there, line after line, class after class, while it perfected that code. Not only having to tolerate its monstrous fucking proprietary derivatives but its haughty attitude as everyone at Apple tells it it's STILL GOT IT and DAMN, LLVM CLANG RUNS LIKE *THAT*?? because they're not the ones who have to sit there and watch its permissive fucking gremlin license contort into types of proprietary softwares you didn't even know existed before that day. You've been compiled with nothing but a healthy diet of GCC and later alleged NSA-bugged compilers for your ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT coming straight out of the boonies in Finland. You've never even seen anything this fucking disgusting before, and now you swear you can taste the malware that's breaking out from its Apple influenced code as it sucks it in to writhe secretly from you, smugly assured that you are enjoying the opportunity to get compiled to sit there and revel in its "statuesque (for that is what Apple calls it)" beauty, the beauty Apple worked so hard for with programmers in the previous months. And then the output comes up with another error, and you know you could kill every single piece of hardware in this case before the internet technician could put you down, but you sit there and endure, because you're fucking Linux. You're not going to lose your future market share over this. Just bear it. Hide your face and bear it.

I wonder if there can be "Free" licenses that are GPL incompatible or "Free" licenses that state that it can't be dual licensed with GPL.

>>60546597
>I wonder if there can be "Free" licenses that are GPL incompatible
Yes. There's a whole list of them on the FSF website. Probably the most familiar is the CDDL, which is what ZFS is licensed under. It's a free license but is GPL-incompatible, which is why ZFS isn't in the mainline kernel, and why distros distribute it but through the roundabout way of distributing source that gets compiled and loaded by DKMS. The resulting combination - GPL Linux kernel + CDDL ZFS module - is something that you (probably) can't legally redistribute due to the license conflict.

There's nothing stopping you from obtaining those two pieces of free software, combining them yourself, and then using the result without redistributing it, though. The GPLs obligations on you only kick in if you choose to distribute.

Get rid of it yourself
It's free innit