6 ms·

Correct. Don't forget one of the most striking differences between free software vs open source software is the promotion of a community of people who add to th

Correct. Don't forget one of the most striking differences between free software vs open source software is the promotion of a community of people who add to the public knowledge of software engineering, not merely to make better software artifacts. If you had to choose, which would you foster? An individual truth or a community of truth seekers? FSF is clearly about the latter.

protomyth 13y ago
I guess I see it a bit different and GCC is a pretty good example. LLVM and clang can be used in pretty much any project. They have provided every developer tools to use in anyway we wish. GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. Why does a 1,000 line GPL count for more than 100,000 lines of some other license? I think the best community is a voluntary one, and with security the way it is, I would rather developers who don't want to be part of the community benefit from the code just as I like the idea of everyone (who can) being vaccinated. GPL generates a self-selected community that has barriers to participation with other communities because the GPL code is held as more important than the rest.
- Smegger 13y ago
  Personally I think that GCC would do much better under something like LGPL that way it could be used much more like Clang but still not sacrifice their principles. As the LGPL is one of their approved and favoured licences already it shouldn't be a problem for them.
- fafner 13y ago
  > GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. That's simply not true.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    So, if Apple had incorporated GCC's parser into Xcode like they have included clang's, what would have been the effect?
    - fafner 13y ago
      They would have to honour GCC's license, like they have to do with clang's license or any other piece of software.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        And would honoring that license require them to release the source for the non-GPL licensed parts of Xcode and perhaps require some action on any patents implemented in that non-GPL code?
        fafner 13y ago
        They have to honour the license. Which provides and guarantees basic freedoms. But it allows the code to be reused in any project honouring the license. So your initial statement is false.
        protomyth 13y ago
        Nope, my basic statement is true. You didn't answer the question and by "code" you don't just mean the GPL code. The GPL tries to affect all code in the project not just the GPLed code.
        fafner 13y ago
        Your basic statement is false: "GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects". That's simply a lie. > You didn't answer the question Because it's completely irrelevant.
        13y ago
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Don't forget one of the most striking differences between free software vs open source software is the promotion of a community of people who add to the public knowledge of software engineering, not merely to make better software artifacts. Even if that is a real ideological division between the two, pragmatically I think that the permissive licenses that the FSF argues are less than ideal have done more after the initial demonstration of the value of F/OSS to promote a community of people who add to the public knowledge of software engineering than have copyleft licenses. I think the divide over licensing approaches is as much over differing views of effective tactics and the real conditions in the environment as it is about differing views of values and strategic goals, and that permissive vs. copyleft is the real current divide more than free software vs. open source, and that, over time, the permissive side is gaining ground for reasons that have nothing to do with the main cited ideological differences between the open source and free software camps.

protomyth 13y ago

I guess I see it a bit different and GCC is a pretty good example. LLVM and clang can be used in pretty much any project. They have provided every developer tools to use in anyway we wish. GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. Why does a 1,000 line GPL count for more than 100,000 lines of some other license? I think the best community is a voluntary one, and with security the way it is, I would rather developers who don't want to be part of the community benefit from the code just as I like the idea of everyone (who can) being vaccinated. GPL generates a self-selected community that has barriers to participation with other communities because the GPL code is held as more important than the rest.

Smegger 13y ago
Personally I think that GCC would do much better under something like LGPL that way it could be used much more like Clang but still not sacrifice their principles. As the LGPL is one of their approved and favoured licences already it shouldn't be a problem for them.
fafner 13y ago
> GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. That's simply not true.
- protomyth 13y ago
  So, if Apple had incorporated GCC's parser into Xcode like they have included clang's, what would have been the effect?
  - fafner 13y ago
    They would have to honour GCC's license, like they have to do with clang's license or any other piece of software.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      And would honoring that license require them to release the source for the non-GPL licensed parts of Xcode and perhaps require some action on any patents implemented in that non-GPL code?
      - fafner 13y ago
        They have to honour the license. Which provides and guarantees basic freedoms. But it allows the code to be reused in any project honouring the license. So your initial statement is false.
        protomyth 13y ago
        Nope, my basic statement is true. You didn't answer the question and by "code" you don't just mean the GPL code. The GPL tries to affect all code in the project not just the GPLed code.
        fafner 13y ago
        Your basic statement is false: "GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects". That's simply a lie. > You didn't answer the question Because it's completely irrelevant.
        13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Don't forget one of the most striking differences between free software vs open source software is the promotion of a community of people who add to the public knowledge of software engineering, not merely to make better software artifacts. Even if that is a real ideological division between the two, pragmatically I think that the permissive licenses that the FSF argues are less than ideal have done more after the initial demonstration of the value of F/OSS to promote a community of people who add to the public knowledge of software engineering than have copyleft licenses. I think the divide over licensing approaches is as much over differing views of effective tactics and the real conditions in the environment as it is about differing views of values and strategic goals, and that permissive vs. copyleft is the real current divide more than free software vs. open source, and that, over time, the permissive side is gaining ground for reasons that have nothing to do with the main cited ideological differences between the open source and free software camps.