Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rewrite is the part where you continue to claim it was driven at all by licensing "The conclusion I've drawn from it is that GPLv3 was a significant driver in the decision to seek out and drive forward a non-GPL compiler project. I didn't say it was the only factor, but I stand by my conclusion that it must have been a significant one." I believe i've completely rebutted this statement with my response. I believe…
The timing is a fair point, though I think you ignore one factor: While gcc didn't switch to gplv3 until 2009, gplv3 was released in draft form in 2006. So I'll concede that it likely wasn't a direct cause of the move to and support of llvm, clang didn't come along until later -- and after it must have been clear that gcc would eventually be gplv3 licensed. God knows GCC's codebase is a rats nest that few people real…
Yes. Absolutely. It's been mentioned numerous times at conferences and other in-person meetings.
Apple did not write clang because of GPLv3. They wrote clang because they needed something that was
1. Faster than GCC 2. Offered better diagnostics 3. Could offer code completion and indexing for XCode.