Joe Buck wrote: > RMS believes that people who extend GCC, hoping to take their extensions > proprietary, and then finding that they can't, will then just decide to > contribute the code, if it is useful, since otherwise they can't > distribute and have to support it by themselves forever, or else they have > to risk legal problems. And he has some evidence that this sometimes > happens (C++, Objective-C, many contributed back ends). So the intent > isn't to prevent certain people from using it, but to have those people > contribute the changes back even if that isn't their preference. > > Now that's fine as far as it goes, but when it becomes a defense > of an opaque, non-extendable architecture we have a problem.
Agreed. It can also make it harder to contribute changes back, thus possibly precluding some contributions. -Jerry
