I perfectly understand his position, and that his Freedom has to come via restrictions (just like our personal freedom requires the rule of law).
I don't think 'more freely licensed' is ambiguous, in the sense that the license allows more freedom of use of the code. It's not 'more Freely licensed', and it's not 'more free' (or 'more Free'), but in the end none of that is really relevant to the point I'm making.
The point, specifically, is that GCC is made better, and people who endorse, enjoy, and use Free Software have a better product to use, specifically because Clang/LLVM exist. He doesn't have to like the licensing, but it's an inherently better product in a lot of ways and his argument seems to be 'it can be used non-freely so who cares'. He can only plug his ears and sing to himself for so long before the world passes him by, and by and large that's what's happened already.
I don't think 'more freely licensed' is ambiguous, in the sense that the license allows more freedom of use of the code. It's not 'more Freely licensed', and it's not 'more free' (or 'more Free'), but in the end none of that is really relevant to the point I'm making.
The point, specifically, is that GCC is made better, and people who endorse, enjoy, and use Free Software have a better product to use, specifically because Clang/LLVM exist. He doesn't have to like the licensing, but it's an inherently better product in a lot of ways and his argument seems to be 'it can be used non-freely so who cares'. He can only plug his ears and sing to himself for so long before the world passes him by, and by and large that's what's happened already.