9 ms·

waits for RMS to get mad https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

haroldp 11y ago
> I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. Wow, what an asshole. Maybe they consider legal restrictions on how other people may use their software to be the opposite of freedom? Maybe that is the truth and maybe RMS has a good point to make, but how tone deaf is to call anything that isn't GNU, "unfree"? To suggest that they don't even talk about freedom because their license is a little different? What an asshole.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. RMS believes that end user of software / hardware should be in complete control, it was/is never about developers. BSD/MIT/etc lic may provide for more developer freedom, but often they are used to restrict user freedom as the code is folded/packaged into commercial projects with non-free licenses
  - BrainInAJar 11y ago
    That's terribly ironic, since the source code is completely useless to the user, only developers.
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      That is not true at all, I know many non-developers that will compile source code themselves, one that is done often would be FFMPEG where you have several compile flags that will make the software preform differently based on the options you select, This is an example of Source Code being useful to non-developers.
      - krapp 11y ago
        Compiling source code you don't comprehend and aren't capable of rewriting isn't really an exercise of freedom. You could just as well distribute a closed binary with runtime configuration options, for all it matters in that case.
        simondedalus 11y ago
        if you're implying that everyone who usefully modifies source code or compiles with options is able to write the code from scratch, i would advise you rethink your position. to put a finer point on it, the concept of "layers of abstraction" is fundamental to computers and software. i can know quite a bit about adjusting the pieces of a program without having the ability to build it as effectively as i modify it.
        krapp 11y ago
        Not from scratch, perhaps, but it still takes technical acumen to do anything useful with the source code at all, which implies that a non-technical user can't really exercise the freedoms of free software, beyond simply having access to the source code.
    - naveen99 11y ago
      User as a developer. Not a 3rd party developer.
    - lmm 11y ago
      Even if you can't make changes yourself, if you have access to the source you can pay other people to make changes you need.
    - slavik81 11y ago
      That's not really true. Perhaps they can't make changes themselves, but they can ask others to do so, or hire someone. Mozilla Science, for example, tries to pair up researchers who have ideas together with developers who can code to build open-source projects. Despite the fact that the researchers may not be able to code, the fact that they have the right to share and modify the code is important.
  - mjburgess 11y ago
    It's a somewhat artificial distinction, since the user of a piece of software becomes a developer to modify it. And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. Prehaps it would not be if money (etc.) didnt exist. It's always the way, however, with idealists to prescribe policies that make people free in their utopia but cause chaos in our reality.
    - _delirium 11y ago
      > And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. This sounds a lot like the people saying that adblocker software is infringing the freedom of people trying to monetize their websites (or maybe even "stealing" from them). And I think the same response applies: the fact that your business model isn't compatible with adblocker software, or with my choice of software license, isn't my problem. Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. A royalty-free one at that! With the only condition being the copyleft condition: that you keep any derived works as open as the original. If you don't like that condition, we can negotiate a commercial license on whatever terms you want, with appropriate payment. Or you can write your own software...
      - eropple 11y ago
        > Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).
        Nadya 11y ago
        You aren't profiting off your work, you're piggybacking off their work with just enough tweaks to sell it. Go write your own software if you want to profit off your work. Then you won't have to deal with the copyleft licenses because you won't be using anyone else's work. Which is the exact purpose of a copyleft license.
  - haroldp 11y ago
    Yeah, whether I agree with it or not, I'm not suggesting he doesn't have a reasonable point to make. I'm just saying he's an asshole, and to some extent, that is working against his own goals.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    > RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly software ever made?
    - detaro 11y ago
      Especially after clang showed the world how useful error messages look like. And GCC has some serious limits when it comes to help other tools, because RMS (probably rightfully) fears that if GCC outputs to detailed backend information, people would start adding non-GPL software after it and build non-GPL compilers on top of GCC. Which lead to the funny situation of people asking to include LLVM-based tools into Emacs, because LLVM allows to build code-analysis tools GCC just doesn't provide the info for. IMHO clang's success and maybe even existence is clear result of GCCs restrictions, but removing these restrictions would undermine central principles. And both compilers are better now than they would be if the other didn't exist, so good for everyone I guess? It doesn't seem possible to reach all goals with just one of them.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > > RMS wants user freedom... > And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly... Eh? User-friendliness and user freedom aren't the same properties.
  - eropple 11y ago
    > RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. Or we reject his attempt to lay exclusive claim to a word as all-encompassing as "freedom" and to co-opt it to his personal pet ends. You know, either/or.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- ch 11y ago
  RMS' use of "free" is very well defined in terms of software (see: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). You are arguing his definition of free, but that isn't up for debate here. RMS may be pedantic, but I'd disagree that makes him an asshole.
  - haroldp 11y ago
    RMS saying that other developers have a different concept of software freedom is reasonable. RMS saying that the difference is important, and his idea of software freedom is reasonable and worth debating. Saying that other developers, "don't talk about freedom" because they use a different license is first class assholitry.
    - ch 11y ago
      No it's just his same argument as ever. The GPL specifically addresses RMS' issues of software freedom. Choosing a different license ignores the topic of software freedom as defined by the FSF. That's all he is saying. Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It's not impossible but much more complex than if you just have a EULA. That said if you remove that difficulty you neuter the GPL and weaken the point of software freedom. I get why RMS pisses people off. He doesn't keep arguing for using the GPL to be an asshole, but because he thinks software users are more important than software developers. Perhaps most developers feel differently?
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It seems like you accidentally a word somewhere in here, but know that you can charge ANY price you want for compiled software distributed under the terms of the GPL. Your only requirement is to -upon request from one to whom you have distributed your software- provide the source code for your software to that person. Fulfilling the request with patches against other code is acceptable. Requiring a snail-mailed request is acceptable. Charging your actual direct costs for fulfilling the request is acceptable. Selling GPL'd software isn't more complicated than selling non-GPL'd software. See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  Going to fun when the developers take Clang closed sourced and add DRM support to it.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    What does DRM support in a compiler tool chain even mean? The ability to develop DRM is available by the nature of the tool, but that is also true of GCC.
    - Gibbon1 11y ago
      Means you won't be able to generate code that runs on other machines without it being signed a trusted third party. You watch.
      - throwawaykf05 11y ago
        Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't that what the Apple App Store has been doing since it was introduced? As I recall, Xcode used GCC back then, so how is Clang relevant?
- michael_storm 11y ago
  RMS is a politician, dude; calm down. Let's look at the preceding sentences: > The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. That's much more nuanced than "anything that isn't GNU isn't free". He thinks that their license is a lot different, because he has a particular definition of "free" that he's championed for decades. Putting "and this is what I mean by 'free'" into every statement would be more PR-friendly, but redundant for... anyone who's heard RMS speak or breathe for 30 years. If anything, this is a reasonable statement from a politician: "The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals." Maybe save the "what an asshole" comment for if he ever says, "LLVM hates freedom, GNU rules, BSD drools."
  - eropple 11y ago
    While I see where you're coming from, and I don't agree with the way you've framed this. That idiosyncratic and generally unshared definition of "freedom" does, to me, make him (and his devotees) at least a little shitty when they attempt to claim moral superiority based on it. I feel the same way about other religionists who assert judgment based on their own pet beliefs, it's not an FSF-specific thing.
    - michael_storm 11y ago
      Yeah, agreed that it's a shitty, though effective, rhetorical technique. I just think haroldp overreacted to it.
      - eropple 11y ago
        It can be effective, but you need a much, much stronger kind of charisma and a better grasp of rhetoric than Stallman or your typical FSF zealot. When delivered by somebody who gets spittle-flecked about this stuff, it makes you crazy and a jerk, instead of just a jerk.
- prodigal_erik 11y ago
  No words like "free" or "freedom" appear anywhere on the http://llvm.org/ http://llvm.org/ homepage. The license merely says "free of charge" without any kind of rationale. Certainly there's no GNU-style manifesto explaining their carefully-considered views on the rights a software user ought to have. Think what you like about whether they should talk about freedom, but we can easily confirm that they don't.
  - haroldp 11y ago
    Similarly, no words like "freedom" appear on the home pages of many popular GPL-licensed projects. That doesn't mean that, "Mono doesn't talk about freedom". It doesn't mean that, "Python doesn't talk about freedom". It means they didn't use the word, "freedom" on their home page. OpenBSD people care about and talk about freedom, I assure you. They have a track record of ejecting software with insufficiently free licenses from inclusion their project. FreeBSD has switched to Clang because, among other reasons, they consider it freer. You and RMS may not agree that that it is indeed freer, but it is obnoxious and demonstrably untrue to say they, "don't talk about freedom".
    - saurik 11y ago
      Python is not licensed under the GPL, and it is not clear to me that they care about this sort of thing. As for Mono, I was there at the conception of the project, and can thereby tell you off the top of my head that if you go to the History section of the documentation they have an archived copy of the premise, and it is dropping with "free as in freedom" language. http://www.mono-project.com/archived/mailpostlongreply/ http://www.mono-project.com/archived/mailpostlongreply/ (More "current", "Free Software" also listed as a "Feature Highlight" in the about page.) http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/
      - haroldp 11y ago
        So they in fact talk about freedom with using the word on their home page. That is exactly my point.
Aloha 11y ago
RMS is nothing if not ideologically consistent. I applaud his goals and perseverance, even if they are not quite the same as mine.
- BrainInAJar 11y ago
  He's consistent to a point. He's quite silent about the hardware aspect, even though free software licensed CPU designs have been available for a long while.
  - jimktrains2 11y ago
    Designs have been, but have actual chips been?
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      If you have the design, and you have access to FPGAs, I'd say that's got you pretty close already. Edit: We were talking about CPUs, not complete systems. And yes, the performance would be poor, but RMS has already strongly established that in his book performance is a distant runner-up to free.
      - jimktrains2 11y ago
        By pretty close you mean no where near a usable system then you'd be correct. If you're not a hardware person, as I'm not, I don't think I could go from blank fpga and parts to a working laptop with a keyboard, trackpoint, and lcd screen in any reasonable amount of time, nor with any certainty that it would work and not be error-prone.
        sklogic 11y ago
        Order Oberon Station, copy-paste a couple of lines of instructions to flash a bitfile, and enjoy a nearly fully open environment. A bit more tricky with or1200, but this way you'll get a fully functional Linux workstation.
duskwuff 11y ago
Android is already so far from the FSF ideal that I really don't expect much of a response from them here.
pvg 11y ago
And you've now derailed the entire thread with unrelated drama-mongering.
- mahouse 11y ago
  What thread? The technical part of this is largely irrelevant, it's the subsequent discussion about politics what is interesting.
  - pvg 11y ago
    I think you've succinctly described "how good forums die".
jordigh 11y ago
I wonder what kind of world we would have if GNU were completely defeated, if no one released anything under the GPL anymore. Sure, free software would still exist, but nobody would call it "free software" and no one would prevent anyone else from creating non-free derivatives. Nearly all software would be "open core", with some free software here and there but with many or most of the interesting components non-free. We're already very close to that world. Many people seem happy to see GNU losing ground every day. For myself, I am not sure that we are working towards the best possible future, but I'm not even sure what that future should be.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  We used to call that "public domain software" and it was big in the 80s from what I recall (I was a kid then). You'd release something to the public domain and people can do with it whatever they wished. Then GNU came around and ate everyone's lunch, for better or worse. I suspect for better. Maybe GNU is just a stop-gap movement to get everyone on board the FOSS train, who knows. BSD licensing hasn't caused any apocalypse yet and arguably it provided a networking stack for Windows that was superior to anything MS could rush out the door back in the NT 3.5 days. There's something nice about being able to put the code into commercial products without worrying about strict GNU/GPL-like conditions.
  - krupan 11y ago
    It was Microsoft that came and ate public domain software's lunch, not GNU. GNU and the GPL were not needed until aggressive copyright enforcers such as Microsoft came on the scene. Bill Gates wrote a famous rant calling anyone that shares code a thief, essentially. The GPL was a reaction to that attitude and has saved the culture of sharing code. If most people defaulted to sharing code like was done pre-Microsoft then BSD would be fine. Read RMS's rant that is linked above. He's still at defending against "adversaries" of Freedom. This is war! OK, so even MS is now open sourcing (some of) their code. Maybe it's not "war" anymore, but you need to understand the history a little.
    - 11y ago
zlatan_todoric 11y ago
RMS is an idealist. If people actually made what he proposed (envisioned), world would be much better place. It is hard to see the entire impact of Free software and even harder to predict how the world would like if people actually stood up to it but I can say that I am sure we would have: - more secure Internet - more decentralized/distributed Internet - no ISP blocks - much harder if not even impossible NSA spying - no disgusting DRM - no patents and patent trolls -> more inovation - no force updates, no abandoned users - more competition in hardware and software field - things being developed for people and not sheer profit - ... - add your points
- kevinchen 11y ago
  You listed a bunch of things without substantiating. For example, how would free software prevent the NSA from spying? Internet backbone taps don't care if your HTTP implementation is running under Windows or Linux...
  - zlatan_todoric 11y ago
    Not all answer need to be pure technical ones - they don't go and search person by person via manpower but they use meta data and algorithms. Simple overflowing their meta data would force them to use other means. Also you forget social impact - if majority of people actually listened to RMS that means majority of people would be very privacy and security minded and would press the government to change the laws (NSA spying is illegal anyway but with majority of folks actually actively pursuing this would made their existence hard or at least not possible to just go and spy and ruing privacy of entire planet).
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    > how would free software prevent the NSA from spying? A lot of hard problems come from the fact that you need lots of developer attention to build and maintain solutions that just work. The domain is tricky and complex enough to where, you can make it zero-effort for one configuration, but making it zero-effort for all possible or even all likely configurations takes more resources than is available. The example relevant here is cryptography software. It's not hard to encrypt stuff. It's hard to make end-to-end solutions that just work, for all possible uses and across all possible platforms. Free software has a restrictive effect of only making software platforms that are open and extensible, vastly reducing the effort needed to maintain end-to-end, user-friendly encryption. It would make it pretty much impossible for the NSA to spy on citizens if we only had free software platforms to support.
sdegutis 11y ago
> The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. It's hard for me to trust the values of a man who thinks sex with children should be legalized. Not ad hominem'ing here, just saying that if his bigger-picture idea of "freedom" includes freedom to have sex with children, he and I have different ideas of what freedom mean, and I can't really say I trust his judgment to understand "freedom" properly.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- wnoise 11y ago
  > It's hard for me to trust the values of a man who thinks sex with children should be legalized. [citation needed]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - xenophonf 11y ago
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#On_sex https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#On_sex
dang 11y ago
This comment breaks the HN guideline that says Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. It has triggered a devolutionary cascade that so far has made it as low as "Wow, what an asshole" and "man who thinks sex with children should be legalized". Blasting craters in the threads like that damages this site. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

haroldp 11y ago

> I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. Wow, what an asshole. Maybe they consider legal restrictions on how other people may use their software to be the opposite of freedom? Maybe that is the truth and maybe RMS has a good point to make, but how tone deaf is to call anything that isn't GNU, "unfree"? To suggest that they don't even talk about freedom because their license is a little different? What an asshole.

the_ancient 11y ago
RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. RMS believes that end user of software / hardware should be in complete control, it was/is never about developers. BSD/MIT/etc lic may provide for more developer freedom, but often they are used to restrict user freedom as the code is folded/packaged into commercial projects with non-free licenses
- BrainInAJar 11y ago
  That's terribly ironic, since the source code is completely useless to the user, only developers.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    That is not true at all, I know many non-developers that will compile source code themselves, one that is done often would be FFMPEG where you have several compile flags that will make the software preform differently based on the options you select, This is an example of Source Code being useful to non-developers.
    - krapp 11y ago
      Compiling source code you don't comprehend and aren't capable of rewriting isn't really an exercise of freedom. You could just as well distribute a closed binary with runtime configuration options, for all it matters in that case.
      - simondedalus 11y ago
        if you're implying that everyone who usefully modifies source code or compiles with options is able to write the code from scratch, i would advise you rethink your position. to put a finer point on it, the concept of "layers of abstraction" is fundamental to computers and software. i can know quite a bit about adjusting the pieces of a program without having the ability to build it as effectively as i modify it.
        krapp 11y ago
        Not from scratch, perhaps, but it still takes technical acumen to do anything useful with the source code at all, which implies that a non-technical user can't really exercise the freedoms of free software, beyond simply having access to the source code.
  - naveen99 11y ago
    User as a developer. Not a 3rd party developer.
  - lmm 11y ago
    Even if you can't make changes yourself, if you have access to the source you can pay other people to make changes you need.
  - slavik81 11y ago
    That's not really true. Perhaps they can't make changes themselves, but they can ask others to do so, or hire someone. Mozilla Science, for example, tries to pair up researchers who have ideas together with developers who can code to build open-source projects. Despite the fact that the researchers may not be able to code, the fact that they have the right to share and modify the code is important.
- mjburgess 11y ago
  It's a somewhat artificial distinction, since the user of a piece of software becomes a developer to modify it. And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. Prehaps it would not be if money (etc.) didnt exist. It's always the way, however, with idealists to prescribe policies that make people free in their utopia but cause chaos in our reality.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    > And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. This sounds a lot like the people saying that adblocker software is infringing the freedom of people trying to monetize their websites (or maybe even "stealing" from them). And I think the same response applies: the fact that your business model isn't compatible with adblocker software, or with my choice of software license, isn't my problem. Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. A royalty-free one at that! With the only condition being the copyleft condition: that you keep any derived works as open as the original. If you don't like that condition, we can negotiate a commercial license on whatever terms you want, with appropriate payment. Or you can write your own software...
    - eropple 11y ago
      > Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).
      - Nadya 11y ago
        You aren't profiting off your work, you're piggybacking off their work with just enough tweaks to sell it. Go write your own software if you want to profit off your work. Then you won't have to deal with the copyleft licenses because you won't be using anyone else's work. Which is the exact purpose of a copyleft license.
- haroldp 11y ago
  Yeah, whether I agree with it or not, I'm not suggesting he doesn't have a reasonable point to make. I'm just saying he's an asshole, and to some extent, that is working against his own goals.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  > RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly software ever made?
  - detaro 11y ago
    Especially after clang showed the world how useful error messages look like. And GCC has some serious limits when it comes to help other tools, because RMS (probably rightfully) fears that if GCC outputs to detailed backend information, people would start adding non-GPL software after it and build non-GPL compilers on top of GCC. Which lead to the funny situation of people asking to include LLVM-based tools into Emacs, because LLVM allows to build code-analysis tools GCC just doesn't provide the info for. IMHO clang's success and maybe even existence is clear result of GCCs restrictions, but removing these restrictions would undermine central principles. And both compilers are better now than they would be if the other didn't exist, so good for everyone I guess? It doesn't seem possible to reach all goals with just one of them.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > > RMS wants user freedom... > And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly... Eh? User-friendliness and user freedom aren't the same properties.
- eropple 11y ago
  > RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. Or we reject his attempt to lay exclusive claim to a word as all-encompassing as "freedom" and to co-opt it to his personal pet ends. You know, either/or.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
ch 11y ago
RMS' use of "free" is very well defined in terms of software (see: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). You are arguing his definition of free, but that isn't up for debate here. RMS may be pedantic, but I'd disagree that makes him an asshole.
- haroldp 11y ago
  RMS saying that other developers have a different concept of software freedom is reasonable. RMS saying that the difference is important, and his idea of software freedom is reasonable and worth debating. Saying that other developers, "don't talk about freedom" because they use a different license is first class assholitry.
  - ch 11y ago
    No it's just his same argument as ever. The GPL specifically addresses RMS' issues of software freedom. Choosing a different license ignores the topic of software freedom as defined by the FSF. That's all he is saying. Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It's not impossible but much more complex than if you just have a EULA. That said if you remove that difficulty you neuter the GPL and weaken the point of software freedom. I get why RMS pisses people off. He doesn't keep arguing for using the GPL to be an asshole, but because he thinks software users are more important than software developers. Perhaps most developers feel differently?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It seems like you accidentally a word somewhere in here, but know that you can charge ANY price you want for compiled software distributed under the terms of the GPL. Your only requirement is to -upon request from one to whom you have distributed your software- provide the source code for your software to that person. Fulfilling the request with patches against other code is acceptable. Requiring a snail-mailed request is acceptable. Charging your actual direct costs for fulfilling the request is acceptable. Selling GPL'd software isn't more complicated than selling non-GPL'd software. See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Gibbon1 11y ago
Going to fun when the developers take Clang closed sourced and add DRM support to it.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  What does DRM support in a compiler tool chain even mean? The ability to develop DRM is available by the nature of the tool, but that is also true of GCC.
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    Means you won't be able to generate code that runs on other machines without it being signed a trusted third party. You watch.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't that what the Apple App Store has been doing since it was introduced? As I recall, Xcode used GCC back then, so how is Clang relevant?
michael_storm 11y ago
RMS is a politician, dude; calm down. Let's look at the preceding sentences: > The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. That's much more nuanced than "anything that isn't GNU isn't free". He thinks that their license is a lot different, because he has a particular definition of "free" that he's championed for decades. Putting "and this is what I mean by 'free'" into every statement would be more PR-friendly, but redundant for... anyone who's heard RMS speak or breathe for 30 years. If anything, this is a reasonable statement from a politician: "The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals." Maybe save the "what an asshole" comment for if he ever says, "LLVM hates freedom, GNU rules, BSD drools."
- eropple 11y ago
  While I see where you're coming from, and I don't agree with the way you've framed this. That idiosyncratic and generally unshared definition of "freedom" does, to me, make him (and his devotees) at least a little shitty when they attempt to claim moral superiority based on it. I feel the same way about other religionists who assert judgment based on their own pet beliefs, it's not an FSF-specific thing.
  - michael_storm 11y ago
    Yeah, agreed that it's a shitty, though effective, rhetorical technique. I just think haroldp overreacted to it.
    - eropple 11y ago
      It can be effective, but you need a much, much stronger kind of charisma and a better grasp of rhetoric than Stallman or your typical FSF zealot. When delivered by somebody who gets spittle-flecked about this stuff, it makes you crazy and a jerk, instead of just a jerk.
prodigal_erik 11y ago
No words like "free" or "freedom" appear anywhere on the http://llvm.org/ http://llvm.org/ homepage. The license merely says "free of charge" without any kind of rationale. Certainly there's no GNU-style manifesto explaining their carefully-considered views on the rights a software user ought to have. Think what you like about whether they should talk about freedom, but we can easily confirm that they don't.
- haroldp 11y ago
  Similarly, no words like "freedom" appear on the home pages of many popular GPL-licensed projects. That doesn't mean that, "Mono doesn't talk about freedom". It doesn't mean that, "Python doesn't talk about freedom". It means they didn't use the word, "freedom" on their home page. OpenBSD people care about and talk about freedom, I assure you. They have a track record of ejecting software with insufficiently free licenses from inclusion their project. FreeBSD has switched to Clang because, among other reasons, they consider it freer. You and RMS may not agree that that it is indeed freer, but it is obnoxious and demonstrably untrue to say they, "don't talk about freedom".
  - saurik 11y ago
    Python is not licensed under the GPL, and it is not clear to me that they care about this sort of thing. As for Mono, I was there at the conception of the project, and can thereby tell you off the top of my head that if you go to the History section of the documentation they have an archived copy of the premise, and it is dropping with "free as in freedom" language. http://www.mono-project.com/archived/mailpostlongreply/ http://www.mono-project.com/archived/mailpostlongreply/ (More "current", "Free Software" also listed as a "Feature Highlight" in the about page.) http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/
    - haroldp 11y ago
      So they in fact talk about freedom with using the word on their home page. That is exactly my point.

Aloha 11y ago

RMS is nothing if not ideologically consistent. I applaud his goals and perseverance, even if they are not quite the same as mine.

BrainInAJar 11y ago
He's consistent to a point. He's quite silent about the hardware aspect, even though free software licensed CPU designs have been available for a long while.
- jimktrains2 11y ago
  Designs have been, but have actual chips been?
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    If you have the design, and you have access to FPGAs, I'd say that's got you pretty close already. Edit: We were talking about CPUs, not complete systems. And yes, the performance would be poor, but RMS has already strongly established that in his book performance is a distant runner-up to free.
    - jimktrains2 11y ago
      By pretty close you mean no where near a usable system then you'd be correct. If you're not a hardware person, as I'm not, I don't think I could go from blank fpga and parts to a working laptop with a keyboard, trackpoint, and lcd screen in any reasonable amount of time, nor with any certainty that it would work and not be error-prone.
      - sklogic 11y ago
        Order Oberon Station, copy-paste a couple of lines of instructions to flash a bitfile, and enjoy a nearly fully open environment. A bit more tricky with or1200, but this way you'll get a fully functional Linux workstation.

duskwuff 11y ago

Android is already so far from the FSF ideal that I really don't expect much of a response from them here.

pvg 11y ago

And you've now derailed the entire thread with unrelated drama-mongering.

mahouse 11y ago
What thread? The technical part of this is largely irrelevant, it's the subsequent discussion about politics what is interesting.
- pvg 11y ago
  I think you've succinctly described "how good forums die".

jordigh 11y ago

I wonder what kind of world we would have if GNU were completely defeated, if no one released anything under the GPL anymore. Sure, free software would still exist, but nobody would call it "free software" and no one would prevent anyone else from creating non-free derivatives. Nearly all software would be "open core", with some free software here and there but with many or most of the interesting components non-free. We're already very close to that world. Many people seem happy to see GNU losing ground every day. For myself, I am not sure that we are working towards the best possible future, but I'm not even sure what that future should be.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
We used to call that "public domain software" and it was big in the 80s from what I recall (I was a kid then). You'd release something to the public domain and people can do with it whatever they wished. Then GNU came around and ate everyone's lunch, for better or worse. I suspect for better. Maybe GNU is just a stop-gap movement to get everyone on board the FOSS train, who knows. BSD licensing hasn't caused any apocalypse yet and arguably it provided a networking stack for Windows that was superior to anything MS could rush out the door back in the NT 3.5 days. There's something nice about being able to put the code into commercial products without worrying about strict GNU/GPL-like conditions.
- krupan 11y ago
  It was Microsoft that came and ate public domain software's lunch, not GNU. GNU and the GPL were not needed until aggressive copyright enforcers such as Microsoft came on the scene. Bill Gates wrote a famous rant calling anyone that shares code a thief, essentially. The GPL was a reaction to that attitude and has saved the culture of sharing code. If most people defaulted to sharing code like was done pre-Microsoft then BSD would be fine. Read RMS's rant that is linked above. He's still at defending against "adversaries" of Freedom. This is war! OK, so even MS is now open sourcing (some of) their code. Maybe it's not "war" anymore, but you need to understand the history a little.
  - 11y ago

zlatan_todoric 11y ago

RMS is an idealist. If people actually made what he proposed (envisioned), world would be much better place. It is hard to see the entire impact of Free software and even harder to predict how the world would like if people actually stood up to it but I can say that I am sure we would have: - more secure Internet - more decentralized/distributed Internet - no ISP blocks - much harder if not even impossible NSA spying - no disgusting DRM - no patents and patent trolls -> more inovation - no force updates, no abandoned users - more competition in hardware and software field - things being developed for people and not sheer profit - ... - add your points

kevinchen 11y ago
You listed a bunch of things without substantiating. For example, how would free software prevent the NSA from spying? Internet backbone taps don't care if your HTTP implementation is running under Windows or Linux...
- zlatan_todoric 11y ago
  Not all answer need to be pure technical ones - they don't go and search person by person via manpower but they use meta data and algorithms. Simple overflowing their meta data would force them to use other means. Also you forget social impact - if majority of people actually listened to RMS that means majority of people would be very privacy and security minded and would press the government to change the laws (NSA spying is illegal anyway but with majority of folks actually actively pursuing this would made their existence hard or at least not possible to just go and spy and ruing privacy of entire planet).
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > how would free software prevent the NSA from spying? A lot of hard problems come from the fact that you need lots of developer attention to build and maintain solutions that just work. The domain is tricky and complex enough to where, you can make it zero-effort for one configuration, but making it zero-effort for all possible or even all likely configurations takes more resources than is available. The example relevant here is cryptography software. It's not hard to encrypt stuff. It's hard to make end-to-end solutions that just work, for all possible uses and across all possible platforms. Free software has a restrictive effect of only making software platforms that are open and extensible, vastly reducing the effort needed to maintain end-to-end, user-friendly encryption. It would make it pretty much impossible for the NSA to spy on citizens if we only had free software platforms to support.

sdegutis 11y ago

> The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. It's hard for me to trust the values of a man who thinks sex with children should be legalized. Not ad hominem'ing here, just saying that if his bigger-picture idea of "freedom" includes freedom to have sex with children, he and I have different ideas of what freedom mean, and I can't really say I trust his judgment to understand "freedom" properly.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wnoise 11y ago
> It's hard for me to trust the values of a man who thinks sex with children should be legalized. [citation needed]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- xenophonf 11y ago
  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#On_sex https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#On_sex

dang 11y ago

This comment breaks the HN guideline that says Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. It has triggered a devolutionary cascade that so far has made it as low as "Wow, what an asshole" and "man who thinks sex with children should be legalized". Blasting craters in the threads like that damages this site. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html