4 ms·

So, is the following an accurate description of the situation? 1. gcc is kludged to preclude use in non-free software. 2. llvm's design is modular and doesn't p

So, is the following an accurate description of the situation? 1. gcc is kludged to preclude use in non-free software. 2. llvm's design is modular and doesn't preclude such use. 3. In RMS's opinion, a politically motivated kludge is to be preferred.

kjs3 13y ago
Bias much? An accurate description would be "gcc is licensed such that plug-ins must be at least as freely licensed as gcc is (GPL3) and LLVM is licensed such that proprietary modules can plug in". If that's a "kludge", then it's a pretty "interesting" use of the word, and one that can be applied to an awful lot of software. Further, it's philosophically motivated, not politically. Whether or not you agree with it is a different, and frankly irrelevant issue.
dalke 13y ago
If you believe in software freedom for all users, then it is immoral to distribute proprietary software or enable others to do so. In that case it's not a kludge, it's a design feature to make it harder for others (eg, "software hoarders") to be immoral, and your points are incorrect. If you believe in software freedom for all developers, so they can do whatever they want to do with your code, then yes the gcc design is horrible and your points are correct. The choice of viewpoint is based on one's politics and ethics, even if isn't explicitly stated. You apparently don't believe in software freedom for all users, so you interpret RMS's objections as being "politically motivated." But by the same token, clang has made a deliberate choice to not protect user freedom, which can just as easily be interpreted as a politically motivated decision.
- jejones3141 13y ago
  Hmmm... then what distinguishes that design feature from DRM?
  - dalke 13y ago
    Ummm, lots of things? To start with, access to the source code, the legal ability to modify and redistribute said code, and no requirement for permission renewals from someone else. What gives you the idea that this is anything like DRM? Given the long history of spin-offs like gcc-xml (which started in 2000), there's nothing which prevents you from adding this design yourself. This is a social contract issue, not a legal one.

kjs3 13y ago

Bias much? An accurate description would be "gcc is licensed such that plug-ins must be at least as freely licensed as gcc is (GPL3) and LLVM is licensed such that proprietary modules can plug in". If that's a "kludge", then it's a pretty "interesting" use of the word, and one that can be applied to an awful lot of software. Further, it's philosophically motivated, not politically. Whether or not you agree with it is a different, and frankly irrelevant issue.

dalke 13y ago

If you believe in software freedom for all users, then it is immoral to distribute proprietary software or enable others to do so. In that case it's not a kludge, it's a design feature to make it harder for others (eg, "software hoarders") to be immoral, and your points are incorrect. If you believe in software freedom for all developers, so they can do whatever they want to do with your code, then yes the gcc design is horrible and your points are correct. The choice of viewpoint is based on one's politics and ethics, even if isn't explicitly stated. You apparently don't believe in software freedom for all users, so you interpret RMS's objections as being "politically motivated." But by the same token, clang has made a deliberate choice to not protect user freedom, which can just as easily be interpreted as a politically motivated decision.

jejones3141 13y ago
Hmmm... then what distinguishes that design feature from DRM?
- dalke 13y ago
  Ummm, lots of things? To start with, access to the source code, the legal ability to modify and redistribute said code, and no requirement for permission renewals from someone else. What gives you the idea that this is anything like DRM? Given the long history of spin-offs like gcc-xml (which started in 2000), there's nothing which prevents you from adding this design yourself. This is a social contract issue, not a legal one.