Why Clang

[Reid Linnemann]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way
> effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have
> corporate users, as well as non-corporate users.  Just as it must
> reasonably see to the needs of the individuals who use it, so must it
> also reasonably see to the needs of those corporate users, especially
> when some of those corporate users' employees are key developers for the
> base system (to the significant benefit of the rest of us).  Thus, saying
> that a particular set of conditions having an impact on commercial
> sponsors of FreeBSD has "zero bearing on FreeBSD itself" is just . . .
> incorrect.

And I would like to stress on this point that, when I referred to
corporate sponsorship in an earlier post, I was thinking specifically
about the sponsorship of employing developers that keep the system
moving forward, not necessarily monetary donations. The foundation
does need money, but the software is doomed if no one is gainfully
employed to maintain and enhance it. I think there is an altruistic
fiction that many people subscribe to that free software is merely the
result of the generosity of developers producing code of their own
volition and on their own spare time and "giving it away," and from
that viewpoint the act of considering concerns of a sponsoring entity
amounts to "selling out." The reality is much different and much more
complex, as you well know.