3 ms·
I don’t see what is so bad faith about his post. His response and his intent are not malicious. On principle he is against proprietary software and he wants to
by CyberRabbi 6y ago
I don’t see what is so bad faith about his post. His response and his intent are not malicious.
On principle he is against proprietary software and he wants to make sure it remains as difficult as possible for proprietary software to exploit GCC for their own means.
He doesn’t seem to be rejecting the code or suggests its deletion because he wants to do unnecessary harm to the author here. His intentions seem rational and consistent with his past remarks.
As an aside and for comparison, proprietary software companies are just as defensive or more with other companies using their IP without compensation. The compensation RMS wants here is code reciprocity.
- spiralx 6y agoHis intent might not be malicious, but accusing the other person of doing something to undermine free software that's so bad it should be "cancelled" is not very nice. He certainly isn't advocating for code being free here, it's literally the opposite.
- arp242 6y agorms' entire problem is that he fails to understand there is more than one way to advocate user freedom. My viewpoint, which is also the viewpoint of pretty much everyone in that thread, is that the best way is to write the best possible software possible. Same goals, just different methods. But there isn't even a discussion about that here, it's just a hard shutdown of these type of arguments from rms. Is it any surprise that almost any project rms has any technical influence on has been in decline?