3 ms·

There's no other way I can comment this.

• mindcrime 13y ago
  The thing is, he's not actually wrong. Not IF you share the same values as Stallman, where "software freedom" is the most primal and important value / goal of all. If you don't share his values, then this statement seems absurd, of course. But he does have a point, even if one chooses to disagree with him. (note: just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not a GNU/FSF hardliner. In fact, I use the ALv2 for most of my open source code.)
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The thing is, he's not actually wrong. Not IF you share the same values as Stallman, where "software freedom" is the most primal and important value / goal of all. That's unquestionably true, if you share Stallman's particular view that the important part of "software freedom" is its negative aspect -- that is, the absence of non-Free software, not its positive aspects, the availability for use of Free software. If you value the same freedoms the FSF embraces but prioiritize positive software freedom more than negative software freedom, its a lot less clear that a LLVM's Free-but-easier-to-use-with-or-in-non-Free-systems nature actually harms software freedom rather than enhancing it.
    • mindcrime 13y ago
      If you value the same freedoms the FSF embraces but prioiritize positive software freedom more than negative software freedom, its a lot less clear that a LLVM's Free-but-easier-to-use-with-or-in-non-Free-systems nature actually harms software freedom rather than enhancing it. Agreed.