5 ms·

Because having a Free implementation which complements the Open Source one is a great way to keep the language alive, evolve it in a saner way, and improve ways

Because having a Free implementation which complements the Open Source one is a great way to keep the language alive, evolve it in a saner way, and improve ways we thought it's impossible to do. clang made gcc and g++ better compilers. gcc-rs can do the same and help making rustc a better compiler and Rust a better language. For the record, I don't write Rust, because GCC has no Rust support yet. More specifically, I don't use LLVM-Specific languages due to LLVM's license and stance against GCC.

estebank 4y ago
How is Rust not evolving in a sane way today?
- bayindirh 4y ago
  I didn't say it's evolving in an insane way, however I believe the outcome improves when more people with different perspectives discuss on a matter. In other words, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together".
eru 4y ago
> For the record, I don't write Rust, because GCC has no Rust support yet. More specifically, I don't use LLVM-Specific languages due to LLVM's license and stance against GCC. As far as I can tell, GCC is licensed under GPLv3 these days. LLVM is under a variation of the Apache License. https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html suggests that you can use code under Apache License in a project that's under GPLv3. So someone could take legally LLVM, change the Readme and slap a GPLv3 license on it, and have the same license as GCC? (Assuming that the exceptions that LLVM's license has aren't a problem.) Would that fix your issues? Or what is your specific problem?
- Thiez 4y ago
  What would be the point of that? Upstream will never accept GPL licensed patches and your fork is also available under the Apache license from the original source (except the readme changes that nobody cares about).
  - eru 4y ago
    The point is that this way you can get an LLVM that's licensed the same way as GCC. This whole exercise has a point, if and only if there's a point to insisting that GCC's license is fine, but LLVM's license ain't. It's just a reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity) If you don't have any problem with the license of LLVM in the first place, the reduction is obviously useless to you.
    - Thiez 4y ago
      I thought the point of having something GPL licensed would be that you actually get to enjoy/enforce the copyleft clauses of the GPL. By just relicensing an existing non-copyleft project and not following up with any significant development you only get the illusion of a copyleft project. If you are happy with this license mirage you are essentially saying you only care about the GPL name and not about copyleft. It's just nerdy virtue signalling.
      - eru 4y ago
        Anyone (sub-) licensing LLVM from you would be bound by the GPL.
        Thiez 4y ago
        I doubt it. Since you don't hold copyright over any part of LLVM you have no standing to sue for copyright infringement, so people using your GPL-but-otherwise-unmodified LLVM can ignore the GPL.
        eru 4y ago
        Well, people can always do illegal things.
josephcsible 4y ago
You're opposed to even using LLVM just because of its pushover license? Isn't even RMS okay with that? Doesn't the usual guidance go like "copyleft free software is good to use and contribute upstream to, free but non-copyleft software is good to use but bad to contribute upstream to, and non-free software is bad to use and contribute upstream to"?

estebank 4y ago

How is Rust not evolving in a sane way today?

bayindirh 4y ago
I didn't say it's evolving in an insane way, however I believe the outcome improves when more people with different perspectives discuss on a matter. In other words, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together".

eru 4y ago

> For the record, I don't write Rust, because GCC has no Rust support yet. More specifically, I don't use LLVM-Specific languages due to LLVM's license and stance against GCC. As far as I can tell, GCC is licensed under GPLv3 these days. LLVM is under a variation of the Apache License. https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html suggests that you can use code under Apache License in a project that's under GPLv3. So someone could take legally LLVM, change the Readme and slap a GPLv3 license on it, and have the same license as GCC? (Assuming that the exceptions that LLVM's license has aren't a problem.) Would that fix your issues? Or what is your specific problem?

Thiez 4y ago
What would be the point of that? Upstream will never accept GPL licensed patches and your fork is also available under the Apache license from the original source (except the readme changes that nobody cares about).
- eru 4y ago
  The point is that this way you can get an LLVM that's licensed the same way as GCC. This whole exercise has a point, if and only if there's a point to insisting that GCC's license is fine, but LLVM's license ain't. It's just a reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity) If you don't have any problem with the license of LLVM in the first place, the reduction is obviously useless to you.
  - Thiez 4y ago
    I thought the point of having something GPL licensed would be that you actually get to enjoy/enforce the copyleft clauses of the GPL. By just relicensing an existing non-copyleft project and not following up with any significant development you only get the illusion of a copyleft project. If you are happy with this license mirage you are essentially saying you only care about the GPL name and not about copyleft. It's just nerdy virtue signalling.
    - eru 4y ago
      Anyone (sub-) licensing LLVM from you would be bound by the GPL.
      - Thiez 4y ago
        I doubt it. Since you don't hold copyright over any part of LLVM you have no standing to sue for copyright infringement, so people using your GPL-but-otherwise-unmodified LLVM can ignore the GPL.
        eru 4y ago
        Well, people can always do illegal things.

josephcsible 4y ago

You're opposed to even using LLVM just because of its pushover license? Isn't even RMS okay with that? Doesn't the usual guidance go like "copyleft free software is good to use and contribute upstream to, free but non-copyleft software is good to use but bad to contribute upstream to, and non-free software is bad to use and contribute upstream to"?