21 ms·

Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

188 points by nickmain 13y ago

beering 13y ago
The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit. That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS. And that's great when the end user is you and me, but it's also not surprising that we, as developers, will happily throw end user rights under the bus if we think we can make some money (e.g. SaaS, app stores, etc.) or profit otherwise.
- intermatrigator 13y ago
  end users do not give a shit about source code (or software licensing at all).
  - jfb 13y ago
    It depends on who your end users are. They are not necessarily strictly consumers of software -- in fact, RMS' history clearly points to a concern for the rights of the interactive web of hackers circa the early 1970s. It is open for debate as to how relevant this focus is in today's very different looking software environment.
  - keithpeter 13y ago
    Yup, I think that might be true. However, I also think (I don't know for certain) that is precisely why it is important that the FSF keeps plugging away and refusing to compromise. There has to be one place where people do give a shit. I have started to use gNewSense 3.0 recently. Small, fast, Gnome 2 and fortunately the er - maturity - of the packages does not affect my use cases.
  - wtetzner 13y ago
    Depends on who the end users are. The end users of clang might care about source code.
  - frou_dh 13y ago
    That's a pretty inane line of argument. Let's generalise it: Xs don't care about Y, except for those Xs that do. Insightful stuff.
  - TorKlingberg 13y ago
    End users that don't want to modify the source code them selves still have the option to use a forked version made by somebody else.
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    Well yes, that's the basis for Stallman's argument. If end users cared about free code, we wouldn't need to enforce it from the other side - nonfree software would have no users.
    - Someone 13y ago
      I care about free oxygen for all, but if the only way to get it was by buying it, I would still buy it, and applaud those attempting to enforce it.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    Software developers are also end users. In fact I'd say this is one of the largest practical benefits for developers when it comes to GPL. If a developer releases their code under GPL and someone else improves upon it, they as end users will recieve the source code to those improvements with which they can improve their original code or simply adopt the improved version.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    I'm an end user. You probably are too. As an end user the GPL benefits me by granting me access to the code, to make alterations, to republish as I see fit. Most end users don't care. Some do.
- atonse 13y ago
  Do you have any examples where end users have been screwed by a program that was compiled using LLVM?
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > a program that was compiled using LLVM? Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been). End users are "screwed over" in this sense every time permissively-licensed free software is forked into proprietary versions that the users cannot do one of the following 1) Study (view the source) 2) Modify (edit the source) 3) Distribute (send the source or binary to another person) 4) Distribute modified versions of the software All of these freedoms include the freedom to hire someone else to do this for you, so even if you are not a developer, you still have the potential to benefit from free software, the same way all drivers benefit from the fact that any mechanic can service a car (not just the dealer).
    - e12e 13y ago
      > Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. Yes and no -- most programs use a c runtime/standard lib (libc). While both allow the use of differenc libcs, it's not quite clear that the gcc toolchain doesn't have any implications for the executable. Just being (overly) pedantic, not trying to contribute to the FSF/GPL FUD. As for grand-parents point: the kind of scenarios where llvm is "scary" is for instance if a gpu vendor releases a closed compiler (or part of a compiler) for writing massively parallel code and/or shaders. Sometimes such a compiler might be called a driver, even if what it does is (among other things) compile code.
    - cwzwarich 13y ago
      > Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been). Strictly speaking, the conditions of the GPL3 license apply to your GCC compiled code (using the GCC runtime library) unless it is compiled using an "eligible compilation process", i.e. no GPL-incompatible software in the middle: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html
- asdasf 13y ago
  >The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit. Many do. Any many of them realize they didn't actually want the GPL, they just picked the license they had heard of the most. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion of gcc being limited technically because the GPL is not enough to sufficiently hinder people from writing proprietary tools. >That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS That is an artificial distinction created to try to justify the newspeak meaning of "freedom" where it is defined to mean "imposes restrictions". Developers are users.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > Developers are users. Developers are users, but so are non-developers. The question of whether developers should be able to restrict freedom of non-developers is the question of whether some users should be able to restrict the freedom of other users. This is an ethical (subjective) question. Put another way, should landowners be allowed the freedom of having serfs or indentured servants? Not allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of some people (the freedom to own serfs). But allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of other people (the freedom to be... well, free human beings). As a society, we believe restricting the freedom to be human beings is ethically abhorrent, so we have no qualms (anymore) about restricting people's freedom to own serfs. Maybe you see non-free software as ethically abhorrent, the way slavery is, maybe you don't. But that is the axiom that the free software movement (and the GPL) is based on - to understand free software, you have to understand that principle, even if you disagree with it.
    - asdasf 13y ago
      You are just repeating the same old red herring. Actually free software does not restrict anyone's freedom. I understand GNU/communists are insane, it is not a problem of understanding, but one of dishonesty. Pretending public domain software (actually free) restricts "end users" freedom is a lie.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  "The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit." Sometimes they do. I've seen it happen more than once where developers chose the GPL, were asked to change it and then did saying they only chose the GPL because it seemed like a decent default because that's what Linux or whatever used. Even more common are developers who don't fully grasp the practical implications of a particular license, like making a Go library LGPL without a static linking exception, not realizing that LGPL is basically the same as GPL on a platform without dynamic linking or a toolset that is well suited to distributing pre-compiled object files to satisfy the license terms.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    And sometimes developers choose a permissive licence when they would have preferred a copyleft style licence had they realised the implications, same deal. Now LGPL and Go's static linking can simply be about not grasping that Go statically links libraries into the final executable, as it's hardly the norm outside of Go.
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  Many authors do naively choose GPL, and many do not. It depends on the author's goal. If their goal is for as many people as possible to use their code then GPL is not the best choice. If the author places higher priority on the Stallman definition of free software then GPL is a great choice. Sometimes authors with the first goal pick GPL because they don't know any better.
davexunit 13y ago
Nothing particularly new here, but it's another reminder about the actual goal of Free Software. A lot of people still don't understand the major distinction between Free Software and Open Source.
zbowling 13y ago
> They have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*) This is a judgement of the motives of Apple that I do not believe is correct by Stallman and he making a straw man case for it. I don't think that Apple "hates" their freedom. I do believe Apple added the restrictions on having only non-GPL code because they understand the problems that it presents legally in the App Store as a distributor and their bourdon under the GPL by being the middle man and redistributing the software in question. Apple would be required to field GPL requests for software in the App Store as the main distributor. This is risk and overhead Apple doesn't want to deal with. They could just as easily make the language not specifically mention GPL at all but instead say that you releasing software on the App Store can't add restrictions, constraints, or additional requirements on how Apple distributes your apps in the App Store not expressly contained the agreement already. This would be the same and would be just as GPL incompatible as it is today.
- csmithuk 13y ago
  Stallman is infamous for this tactic to the point it's getting tiresome for me. Take a look at the thread on openbsd-misc "real men don't attack straw men" (his title) which was used to attack the OpenBSD project. They didn't stand for the crap stirring then. Whilst I think his basic principles are correct, how he conducts himself is purely extremism and compromises those ideals instantly. Edit: fix a couple of typos. Damn phone!
- asdf3 13y ago
  Distributions include src packages separate from compiled code, so why couldn't the Apple Store (or any store) do that? This isn't a legal issue; Google allows GPL code on it's app store.
- cma 13y ago
  Read what he wrote in the asterisk; he is making a distinction about DRM and terms of use. A counter example: sourceforge, as the primary distributor of many GPL'ed binaries, does not have to field GPL requests for software. DMCA safe-habor clause removes that burden; all they have to do is comply with takedown requests. http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/156894/Are-App-Stores-Liable-for-Open-Source-Software-Compliance http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/156894/Are-App-Stores-Liab... "Either way, the next question in the legal analysis is whether the app store qualifies as an online service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Actually, a court may answer this question first as a matter or practicality.[1] The DMCA limits liability of online service providers for infringing material provided to the service by its users (i.e. app developers here) so long as the provider meets certain conditions. Whether an app store can be considered under the DMCA definition of an online service provider has yet to be tested, but it seems likely given the trend of caselaw that has held such vendors as Amazon and YouTube to qualify."
kwantam 13y ago
Context: This discussion originated on the emacs-devel mailing list, where there was a discussion of adding code to company-mode (text completion) explicitly supporting Clang [1]. It was pointed out [2] that RMS has in the past shown a disinclination to incorporate Clang support into GNU projects because of his perception of its encouragement of proprietary software riding the coattails of open source (but not Free) software. The discussion then turned [3] to another instance of this: RMS's disapproval of modifications to GCC that would have made the front end more easily separable from the back end, opening the door to a proprietary end-around (or just outright abuse) of the Free license on the GCC frontend. The article linked above is RMS's response to ESR's comments [4] that such policies have reduced the popularity of GCC compared to Clang. [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg01732.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017... [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg01735.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017... [3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg01739.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017... [4] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html
- Touche 13y ago
  Clang is free software.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - mattl 13y ago
      the BSD license is a free software license. It's not a copyleft license, or a GNU license, but its a free software license. The 2 and 3 clause BSD licenses are GPL-compatible free software licenses. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD Even the original 4-clause BSD license is a free software license, although the 'advertising' clause is GPL-incompatible. It's also not used much any more. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
sdegutis 13y ago
> The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal. I want to live in a world where innovation thrives and survival of the best technology reigns. Because the ultimate point of technology is to serve humanity by making our lives better. So stifling innovation just so that everyone has access to source code is backwards.
- jhonnycano 13y ago
  the point is -who is "us"?- us the developers? us the government? us the users?
- angersock 13y ago
  The rough line of reasoning here is that non-free software will, eventually, allow business tactics which run counter to software thriving and the best technology reigning.
octo_t 13y ago
Is it bad I just don't care that LLVM has enabled non-free software? Because it has done a h*ck of a lot for opensource software. New languages, new compilers, new optimisers, new IDEs have sprung up around an impressive framework. I also don't understand how LLVM enables non-free software any more than binutils does. I can do: binutils/cat my_file | my_incredibly_none_free_program | binutils/grep my_pattern which is essentially how LLVM works.
- themoonbus 13y ago
  No, it's not bad. Stallman is an ideologue.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  You feel the need to censor "heck"? Seriously though, I agree. Stallman here seems to be adopting almost a religious argument, not a pragmatic one. He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. If he prioritizes freedom over everything else, then more power to him, but to me talking about who "wins" and "loses" on some kind of arbitrary scale of freedom does not make a compelling case against the use of excellent tools like Clang/LLVM.
  - zwieback 13y ago
    I think that's the function of Stallman and what he will be remembered as: an absolute that's useful to measure your own position against.
    - smrtinsert 13y ago
      I agree. Also it serves to be notable so people keep talking about it.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. Which is a valid complaint given the nature of Skype. There's also tons of other reasons, though. Primarily technical ones. Either way, software freedom is an important goal and even though I don't necessarily agree with RMS in this case, I understand where he's coming from. So many people seem to have some phobia of accentuating the ethical, freedom and community contexts that the term "free software" implies, preferring the more bitterly pragmatic "open source". That and this is a very typical RMS rant. This is probably the umpteenth one of the same variation, only with $SOFTWARE being Clang/LLVM in this case. For the record, I love Clang/LLVM and support BSD licensing. For a lot of software, having an open source development model without the deeper freedom contexts is good enough.
eliteraspberrie 13y ago
I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later. I don't use the GPL because I cannot honestly say that I understand it entirely. I understand copyleft, but the document is written for lawyers and I am not one. I can't expect users to read it either, much less understand it. I use the BSD licenses because they are simple and clear. If I ever had to defend my intellectual property, I could do so myself, and the case would be over quick. That is more important to me, as a developer without access to lawyers, than ideological battles.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html it isn't that bad to get through. There are also more than enough analysis of it on the web from reputable sources (I'm looking for good links...). If you understand copyleft, then you know what you're giving up by not using a copyleft, license. Do you not care about what you gain from the copyleft or don't want what you gain?
  - Sanddancer 13y ago
    I care about what I lose because of copylefting software. I want software to suck less, and if that occasionally means letting someone be a free-rider on my stuff, let it be. At the same time, the existence of the GPL doesn't preclude people from free-riding either. Look at the embedded toolchains that are little more than GCC with a tiny proprietary wrapper, or the many many companies that use GPLed code, and have internal patches that never see light outside of the company. Restrictive licenses like the GPL are not all sunshine and roses.
  - eliteraspberrie 13y ago
    I think most people outside of technology wouldn't easily understand copyleft, and a day might come when I depend on those people. So it's a trade-off between my rights, users' rights, and my peace of mind. The rights I give up, by choosing BSD rather than GPL, I don't think I could enforce without losing my peace of mind.
- 13y ago
codex 13y ago
Stallman consistently ignores the free market when writing about software freedom. What users want, the free market will provide. If they want customizable software, the market will give it to them. If they only want feature X, the market will give it to them. If they want interop., they will get that too. If they don't care about modifying the source code, well, people won't offer it. The GPL is not what allows users to get what they need from software or technology. It's the market. As long as you have a free market, with able competitors, you don't need the GPL, and the whole discussion of "free software" is a red-herring. Stallman's initial experience with closed software was not in a free market, so I can see how he's grown up with a colored view.
- gaius 13y ago
  He also got a million dollar grant from the McArthur Foundation, and another one from the Takeda Foundation, and doesn't really understand that most programmers operate in a very different economic reality than his bubble.
- davexunit 13y ago
  ESR, is that you? All you did was repeat "free market" a bunch of times. Congratulations.
  - buzaga41 13y ago
    Besides that, I'm pretty sure when the free market sent down that 10 commandments thing it said not to go around using it's name in vain
  - codex 13y ago
    Allow me to continue, then. Stallman's original problem was essentially, "I had a broken car once and I couldn't get the part I needed to repair it. That sucked, so all manufacturers should provide everyone with all the information needed make any replacement part." In today's world that problem really doesn't exist anymore. Software is a mass market product, and the software that is produced already conforms to what people want pretty well. Sure, I'll take cheaper parts for my car, but on the list of humanity's problems, non-GPL software is very, very low.
phamilton 13y ago
He's basically saying: "We must avoid design decisions that allow users to do X, because we disagree with X". Everyone has their own definition of "Free", but to me that seems very similar to Walled Garden decisions regarding my freedom as an end user. You could just as easily say: "We don't want to allow unsigned code to run, because we disagree with not signing code" I guess the difference is that you can fork gcc and start a parallel project. Or you can just let it die as llvm and clang become more and more efficient.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  Is this still surprising or non-obvious, after decades of GPL vs BSD flamewars (and, in particular, discussions on which one is truly "free")? GPL is restrictive and defending users' freedoms is the exact reason for this. If you care about that, welcome to the GPL side; if you don't want the imposed restrictions but also ready to stop enforcing (through restrictions) GPL-granted freedoms - BSD and company await you.
- sdegutis 13y ago
  > Or you can just let it die as llvm and clang become more and more efficient. That's my plan.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  >I guess the difference is that you can fork gcc and start a parallel project. Or you can just let it die as llvm and clang become more and more efficient. And watch as over a decade or two you lose any control over what software you run that you still might have.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >He's basically saying: "We must avoid design decisions that allow users to do X, because we disagree with X". Well obviously he wants to void design decisions which allow limiting end user rights given that protecting these end user rights is the entire idea on which FSF and subsequently the GPL licence was founded. Rights which include the source code to see how a program works and be able to modify, run and copy said software. Allowing for proprietary plugins in GCC means no longer protecting these rights, which of course makes no sense from FSF's standpoint as again, protecting end user rights is and creating software which promotes these end user rights is their reason for existance.
lolwutf 13y ago
<yet another reminder that Richard Stallman is bat shit crazy but a necessary vocal FOSS proponent for counterbalancing closed-source interests>
- clamberson 13y ago
  Obviously you've never read RMS, because "open source" is one of the things he vehemently fights against.
rwg 13y ago
When I finally realized that the FSF is really about being a social movement and that creating useful software is a non-primary goal (or maybe even a non-goal), my level of annoyance with RMS greatly decreased. Of course, along with that, my level of give-a-shit about the FSF and the GNU project decreased proportionally. Stallman wants you to use Free software because it's free-as-in-ideology, not because it necessarily works well or does what you want.
- tcdent 13y ago
  You've got it exactly right, but I don't see why that would turn you off of the movement, or at least keep it in mind as you develop and use software.
- pantalaimon 13y ago
  It's also a social movement that cares about what is the epitome of a first-world-problem.
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    Not necessarily. If a 3rd world farmer is hamstrung by licenses on any tools they have (and seeds they grow), that could prevent them from making those tools better, or crossbreeding those seeds. Same with educational software and material. Just because the focus is mainly on software, which is admittedly a 1st world problem, doesn't mean the ideals can't apply to the 3rd world as well.
    - chc 13y ago
      Third-world farmers won't be hamstrung by licenses because the third world does not care about licenses.
      - e12e 13y ago
        Only until a first-world company has a third world militia torch his fields for non-compliance.
surrealize 13y ago
This message conflates two issues in an unfortunate way. One issue is the licensing of GCC, the other issue is the architecture of GCC (how modular it is). No one is arguing that GCC should change licenses. But he seems to think that making GCC more modular would somehow make it less free: > If GCC were to change from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal of freedom very well. There are two embedded assumptions here. First, that making GCC more modular would result in people creating non-free compilers with it (presumably by connecting a non-free component with GCC using an IR rather than linking directly, to get around the GPL). And second, that such use would become more prevalent than just using GCC itself (which is what would "change" GCC from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers). I imagine a few people would use GCC components that way, if it became more modular. But would that use be a significant one? That's unknown. And would that use "no longer serve the goal of freedom"? If a large number of nonfree tools appear that generate and consume a GCC IR, that could boost GCC as well. The GPL seems to be able to defend freedom just fine for all the other gnu software, even the modularly-architected projects. I don't see why it can't ultimately do the same for GCC.
- XorNot 13y ago
  This is a good take on the deficiencies of Stallman's position here really. Linus stands directly against this sort of idea - his whole take on licensing has always been that he wants to make sure people contribute code back if they modify it, but otherwise can include the kernel in whatever they want - which provides a similar benefit - more people using Linux kernels, more people likely to want to improve Linux kernels. More people using GCC would be great - especially since any 'magic' blackbox components that became useful would start to expose their workings anyway since they'd have to speak to GCC.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    >Linus stands directly against this sort of idea Linus and the rest of the Linux kernel developers make it intentionally hard to keep out-of-tree modules working against the kernel for the same reason that GCC does, which is to have the code included into the main project where it will benefit all end users instead of having proprietary/out-of-tree modules/plugins which are available to a select audience. I can't see how you can claim that Linus stands 'directly against this sort of idea'. They seem very much aligned to me.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
"hates our freedom" I tuned out at this point. Polemics tend to bore me and are a fantastic way of turning people off of the rest of your message. (see also: All FSF anti-Windows campaigns)
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Is it really that false, though? I agree it reeks of demagoguery, but it's still not that far from the truth. Where freedom refers to digital freedom, of course.
- RamiK 13y ago
  Amusing considering such a distinction is polemic.
chubot 13y ago
What are the proprietary compilers that LLVM enabled? Are they significant? Stallman's claim about the practical difference between gcc and LLVM is interesting but I'd like to know more details.
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  And more importantly, does their existence help or hinder the work done on LLVM?
- gurkendoktor 13y ago
  I assume that Apple's OpenGL stack that uses LLVM for optimisations on low-end GPUs is still proprietary and not included in source dumps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Description ...but I'm not really sure if that would be an example of extending LLVM or only of using it, which would make all the difference if it was copyleft software.
mcguire 13y ago
Every once in a while, RMS makes a statement that doesn't require translation to avoid seeming ridiculous: "When any program fosters non-free software, that works directly against the overall goal. "Copyleft is our method of making sure that our free software does not generate nonfree competitors which consist of our code plus something else that is off limits to us." http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html
ChuckMcM 13y ago
I am surprised he isn't railing against all the folks selling GCC for extortionate rates to the embedded community. IAR, KEIL, others, $3,000 - $6,000 for a "development tool" which is 99% gcc and 1% some startup code the vendor wrote. Nice margins I guess.
- com2kid 13y ago
  This is perfectly valid, selling GPL software is fine if you can find someone to pay for them. Wrapping them up in a nice installer and selling a support package, also A-OK, and a frequently recommended business model. Free software doesn't mean free as in price, it is free as in freedom. Keil is a bit different in that you are also paying for their IDE and debugger and such, which are of course non-Free.
- blacksmythe 13y ago
  >> 99% gcc and 1% some startup code Modifying and selling gcc to compile code optimized for lots of different underpowered processors sounds like an unattractive business model to me, given (I assume) a relatively small number of customers for any given microprocessor type and (again I assume) a significant amount of work for each microprocessor type supported.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Sort of. There are folks who have C compilers optimized for smaller processors, my personal favorite are the folks at ImageCraft. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who take the community developed gcc (which they haven't "optimized" at all) and Eclipse config, and some of their own startup code crt0.a + linkerscript. And then put that together as their tool for $3,000. I'm sure its a wonderful business for them. RMS was railing that clang wasn't embodying the spirit of "free software" because it parts could be proprietary, but he doesn't rail against those people like IAR who keep their parts proprietary but are riding on the shoulders of the community doing the heavy lifting. I find that notable because I like what the folks are trying to achieve with clang and do not like what IAR has done with gcc. Granted it is entirely my own personal pain point.
ridiculous_fish 13y ago
> [Clang and LLVM] have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. It's worth pointing out that GCC also "has been supported" by Apple, especially around PowerPC support and the PFE implementation. If you can get past the insane "War on Terror" rhetoric, that is.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  It's worth pointing out that Steve Jobs at NeXT was a prime example of the benefits of a policy against proprietary linking as Jobs tried to have GCC be the backend of their (NeXT's) proprietary ObjectiveC front end. He (Jobs) was not allowed to do this due to the licencing (GPL) which is what led to GCC getting a ObjectiveC frontend merged which was then available to all GCC users. Had Jobs had his way, only NeXT users would have had the benefit of the ObjectiveC front end while NeXT would have enjoyed the benefits of the GCC backend.
  - nzp 13y ago
    Well, when you spin it like that... I'm no Steve Jobs apologist, but I think it's important to get the facts straight. NeXT wanted to distribute the frontend as .o files which the user would link with the backend, true. Now, the way you present it makes it seems as though NeXT was hell bent on having a proprietary frontend, but were strongarmed by the GPL to release under the GPL. What actually happened is that Jobs asked RMS if he thought it would be OK to distribute the frontend as .o files, to which Stallman said that it probably would be OK (from a legal standpoint), but then consulted a lawyer who told him that the judge would probably think this is not OK. So RMS then tells Jobs that FSF believes this is not allowed by the GPL. Then NeXT produces GPLed frontend. Notice how smooth all of this went. No attempts of subversion by NeXT or disputing FSF's opinion, they asked, were given a legally worthless negative opinion which they accepted and produced a free frontend. So yes, technically it happened because of the GPL (but only on an assumption that the judge would accept FSF's lawyer reasoning) but based on what actually happened there is no evidence of Jobs wanting to "have his way". If Jobs "hated" "our freedom" and the GPL was the only thing that stood between us and slavery as RMS likes to think, this would unlikely go without any friction whatsoever. Sources for what happened: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-objective-c-frontend/ http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-ob... EDIT: Another source, the first paragraph is telling: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pBZdo_bXPc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pB...
yalogin 13y ago
I respect RMS a lot and really appreciate his steadfast promotion of free software (copyleft). But isn't it becoming a moot point in this day and age? A decade or two ago the software tools were important and since all of them were proprietary GNU was sorely needed and all the work done by people on GNU and Linux really was needed. But now the concept of open source and free software (not copy left but just free) has really taken roots and businesses have evolved to circumvent the revenue loss from giving away software. Instead they now created a new closed ecosystem - cloud and hosted services. By moving them away from people's computer they have control and we are pretty much in the same situation as we were a decade ago. So we need a new idea of "copyleft" that applies to services and hosted platforms and not just tools. Isn't it where the battle needs to be now with regards to freedom (as RMS puts it)?.
- mempko 13y ago
  And RMS recognizes this. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
aurelius 13y ago
"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE is able to benefit from it, and that is good... FOR EVERYONE! For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products. The money that proprietary companies make from being able to incorporate non-copylefted software into their products has a ripple effect. Companies like NVIDIA can provide more jobs, LLVM developers become more highly sought-after, customers benefit from more rapid advances in the technology, and the entire LLVM-based community benefits from work that filters back down from companies like NVIDIA into the mainline LLVM repo. Stallman's argument that projects like LLVM help proprietary companies take away users' rights is simply not true. There would be little benefit for a company like NVIDIA to take from the LLVM community, and be unwilling to give anything back. For one, it would be so much harder for them to hire good people out of that community, which they will desperately need in order to drive their products forward. But look at what has actually happened: NVIDIA are releasing the code to their LLVM-based compiler! Why? Because it doesn't really benefit NVIDIA to enforce a proprietary lock-in on their customers. As for his argument against the Apple App Store, how is it really of benefit to anyone if binaries are "free" the way he thinks they should be? Does anyone really want or need the ability to install a "free" binary onto their iPhone/iPad? Why is wrong for companies to want to protect their proprietary platforms and technology (and also their users) from potentially malicious/illegal code, or code that might brick the device? Oh, that's right! Because Richard Stallman thinks that companies should not be allowed to guard any of their interests when it comes to software. This is an obnoxious opinion, and detrimental to real user freedom. I do not think the world will suffer AT ALL if clang/LLVM has doomed GCC to irrelevance. I was actually glad to read Stallman's email because it signifies that clang/LLVM really are eroding GCC's relevance, to the point where even Stallman is feeling it. Soon, Stallman and his FSF cronies will be relegated to the footnotes of computing history where they belong.
- 13y ago
crazy1van 13y ago
How does Stallman fund his life? I'm assuming he gets paid a salary. So he's ok with doing work for money himself, but not ok with other people monetizing their efforts in a slightly different way. I don't understand.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  > How does Stallman fund his life? Probably with great difficulty, but looking at the guy I bet he's never even seen a suit and tie. Also because of his views on privacy, I think speculating what his average drawings are is a waste of time. I don't think he uses a mobile phone, so what are the chances of him waving his T-accounts in the press' face?
- davexunit 13y ago
  He does not get paid a salary, afaik. The FSF certainly does not pay him. In the old days he made his money by selling copies of Emacs and documentation and such. These days, he travels the world and speaks at various institutions. Monetization is not at odds with free software, btw. In fact, software that cannot be used commercially is nonfree! There is no moral objection to a programmer being paid to write software. The objection is to software licensing that denies user of that software the "four freedoms". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- tobiasu 13y ago
  Grants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Honors_and_awards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Honors_and_awa... It's said he has some serious cash in the bank. Given his eccentric but modest lifestyle, I doubt he'll ever have financial problems.
jarjoura 13y ago
I can sympathize with RMS's argument that companies like Apple & Google can create plugins and modules that are proprietary because LLVM/Clang has a non-copyleft license. However, it would not be in any contributing companies favor to avoid pushing changes back up stream. The pool of people work together to solve really hard problems and they all need to be on the same page. Otherwise that work will become extremely hard to maintain when merges do need to happen. Maybe I do not understand the licensing, but since LLVM is "more" free, couldn't RMS and his FSF members create a GPLv3 version of it that meets his goal?
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >Otherwise that work will become extremely hard to maintain when merges do need to happen. Why would it be hard to maintain when there is a plugin system which allows you to leverage the compiler functionality through a stable API?
- e12e 13y ago
  > Maybe I do not understand the licensing, but since LLVM is "more" free, couldn't RMS and his FSF members create a GPLv3 version of it that meets his goal? Yes, if you could get together a lot of people you could fork llvm under a different license -- GPL or proprietary. But forking to GPL would a) be a bit rude, and perhaps more importantly b) most likely just be a dead fork. You would have to contribute a fairly significant patch (I can't think of anything that would qualify at this stage of LLVM/Clang maturity) under GPL for "most" to want to use your version. So, no, they can't practically do that, even if the license permits it. And at any rate; c) Since the architecture of LLVM allows proprietary extensions, even if Clang/LLVM was under the GPL big changes would be needed to "force" the GPL on things like CUDA compilers etc. (This is the point that ERS originally raised, arguably with limited knowledge of actual modern architecture of GCC, that GCC is artificially kept monolithic and by extension tied to a technically inferior architecture). See also: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00181.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00181.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html
saurik 13y ago
In case anyone doesn't realize this: the ARM64 LLVM backend used by Apple in Xcode 5 to target, for example, the iPhone 5S, is currently not open source. There is a vague promise that it will be merged, but the time frame described was itself long, many months have already passed, and it doesn't really seem like much progress has been made since (although of course things could be happening internally at Apple). (In fact, none of the code actually backing Xcode 5 or iOS 7, even LGPL code such as WebCore/JavaScriptCore, has yet to be released; but, in the case of the ARM64 backend, there was a specific discussion about it on the mailing list, and in fact some iOS-specific ARM64 patches to LLVM languished seemingly due to the idea that "well, some day the ARM64 stuff will be merged from Apple", so it is already having "chilling effects".)
guscost 13y ago
The problem I have with the copyleft movement is an impression that they want developers to have less freedom than end users. As an end user I get free access to all GPL source code, but as a developer I can only use that source code to make new software if I follow certain rules. It's as if there was a "free recipes" movement arguing that since their method for cultivating cayenne peppers was under GPL, KFC should be forced to tell everyone how to make their chicken.
- Avshalom 13y ago
  The GPL/Four Freedoms more or less rejects the distinction between developer and user.
  - guscost 13y ago
    That seems to make about as much sense as rejecting the distinction between cooking chicken and eating it.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I put chicken on my plate. I taste it. It is not salty enough. I add some salt. Obviously, we wouldn't call this "cooking chicken", but I'm participating in the creation of my final meal. We can add arbitrarily more, arbitrarily complex steps and ingredients. It totally makes sense to say, "this person is developing software" or "this person is cooking chicken". What is rejected is the notion that eating the chicken means you're not taking any role in shaping it except those roles explicitly given to you. When I make boxed macaroni and cheese, I add nutmeg, and the result is way better. It's a good thing I have access to enough of the guts of the recipe to make that change (... or maybe it would be better if I ate less boxed macaroni and cheese, but I think you follow the metaphor).
jnbiche 13y ago
What many GPL supporters fail to understand is that GPL doesn't hinder or hurt big companies at all. If they find a GPL-licensed piece of software they need, they just pay their developers to make another proprietary one. With the exception of huge projects like Linux, it's a rounding error for them. No, the only ones the GPL hinders are small-time freelance devs and small devs shops who are trying to make a living. Often, these are the same devs who are leading open source projects of their own. When they need to create a proprietary project to pay the bills, a GPL-licensed library is usually the end of the road for their project, since they won't have the manpower to replicate it on their own. Aside from these issues, do we really care that we can't access the source of Subtle Text? As long as it's got a good API, I don't see the big problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of open source, and have realized numerous modest projects under the MIT license. But proprietary projects, even ones that use my MIT code, don't offend me to the core like they do RMS and co-ideologues (incidentally, I feel like I'd really get along with RMS as a person, even if he might shun me).
- chrisdone 13y ago
  tl;dr: “I disagree with the core principle of the FSF and the GPL”.
mortdeus 13y ago
This argument is moot. Proprietary software doesn't have to live at a dissonance from FLOSS software, nor does free software protect the integrity of freedom. So there are proprietary compilers being derived from LLVM... How does that prevent somebody from throwing out the proprietary compiler on principle in order to support the open source alternative? Forcing somebody to respect your ideological beliefs regarding freedom is just as much a wolf in sheep's clothing as a notion to force somebody to bend to your will regarding how the software you use may function by design. There is a place for open source licenses and there is a place for free software licenses. To say free software protects the interest of technological innovation better than open source software can is a position based on a foundation of ignorant dissension. Science has little use for politics playing a major role as a core value. 99% of all people Using software could care less about the freedom of software, and the 1% who do care are split between the engineers who value the ideals of innovation by collaboration, and the executives who understand that too much freedom means everybody gets stuck with a bounced cheque.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  Your argument is 'moot'. Free software is no more 'forcing' anyone to respect your ideological beliefs than proprietary software is, in neither case you can 'prevent anyone from throwing it out on principle'. Proprietary limits the rights of end users, you are free to not use proprietary software. Free software secures rights of end users, you are free to not use Free software.
dradtke 13y ago
I just don't get why GCC needs to cripple itself; shouldn't the (in)ability to incorporate GCC be handled by the license? It's a legal issue, not a technical one. Sure, making it easier to plug in to other programs enables proprietary software developers to do so as much as it does free software developers, but the former is still illegal if the software is released that way.
JulianMorrison 13y ago
In practise, has LLVM/Clang turned into an unfreedom-fest? I haven't noticed as much. It seems to be remaining free in practise.
nycticorax 13y ago
"[The Clang and LLVM developers] object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them." I would call this an Orwellian use of language. Stallman and the FSF have adopted a particular definition of "freedom", which is a good deal more particular that the usual definition, but they seem to consistently act as if it was the one and only definition, and therefore that anyone opposed to it is opposed to freedom. Nevertheless, on one reasonable definition of "freedom", permissive licenses are more free than copyleft licenses. On another reasonable definition (the FSFs), copyleft licenses are more free than permissive licenses. The statement quoted above implicitly assumes that there is only one definition of freedom, and it's the one the FSF favors.
BjoernKW 13y ago
I think Stallman has very much lost sight of who his true 'adversaries' are. I consider myself a strong proponent of open source software but there are reasons - imagined or real - for not making everything open source or for using a permissive licence. Not using a permissive licence for a software effectively bars most companies from using that software. In my opinion licences such as Affero GPL aren't free at all because they limit what you can do on your own machines. I've experienced this first hand with very useful libraries such as iText. Sure, iText und many other AGPL-licensed libraries are available under an additional proprietary licence. However, this isn't very much about free software either but simply another sales argument: "You've got to publish the valuable source code of your application unless you pay us a lot of money. In that case: Screw free software!" Sounds a bit like blackmail to me. I understand that the FSF is an ideological movement that's based on strong principles. Stubbornly insisting on these principles without considering pragmatic concerns does a disservice to free software adoption, though.

188 points by nickmain 13y ago

The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit. That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS. And that's great when the end user is you and me, but it's also not surprising that we, as developers, will happily throw end user rights under the bus if we think we can make some money (e.g. SaaS, app stores, etc.) or profit otherwise.

intermatrigator 13y ago
end users do not give a shit about source code (or software licensing at all).
- jfb 13y ago
  It depends on who your end users are. They are not necessarily strictly consumers of software -- in fact, RMS' history clearly points to a concern for the rights of the interactive web of hackers circa the early 1970s. It is open for debate as to how relevant this focus is in today's very different looking software environment.
- keithpeter 13y ago
  Yup, I think that might be true. However, I also think (I don't know for certain) that is precisely why it is important that the FSF keeps plugging away and refusing to compromise. There has to be one place where people do give a shit. I have started to use gNewSense 3.0 recently. Small, fast, Gnome 2 and fortunately the er - maturity - of the packages does not affect my use cases.
- wtetzner 13y ago
  Depends on who the end users are. The end users of clang might care about source code.
- frou_dh 13y ago
  That's a pretty inane line of argument. Let's generalise it: Xs don't care about Y, except for those Xs that do. Insightful stuff.
- TorKlingberg 13y ago
  End users that don't want to modify the source code them selves still have the option to use a forked version made by somebody else.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  Well yes, that's the basis for Stallman's argument. If end users cared about free code, we wouldn't need to enforce it from the other side - nonfree software would have no users.
  - Someone 13y ago
    I care about free oxygen for all, but if the only way to get it was by buying it, I would still buy it, and applaud those attempting to enforce it.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  Software developers are also end users. In fact I'd say this is one of the largest practical benefits for developers when it comes to GPL. If a developer releases their code under GPL and someone else improves upon it, they as end users will recieve the source code to those improvements with which they can improve their original code or simply adopt the improved version.
- Nursie 13y ago
  I'm an end user. You probably are too. As an end user the GPL benefits me by granting me access to the code, to make alterations, to republish as I see fit. Most end users don't care. Some do.
atonse 13y ago
Do you have any examples where end users have been screwed by a program that was compiled using LLVM?
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > a program that was compiled using LLVM? Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been). End users are "screwed over" in this sense every time permissively-licensed free software is forked into proprietary versions that the users cannot do one of the following 1) Study (view the source) 2) Modify (edit the source) 3) Distribute (send the source or binary to another person) 4) Distribute modified versions of the software All of these freedoms include the freedom to hire someone else to do this for you, so even if you are not a developer, you still have the potential to benefit from free software, the same way all drivers benefit from the fact that any mechanic can service a car (not just the dealer).
  - e12e 13y ago
    > Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. Yes and no -- most programs use a c runtime/standard lib (libc). While both allow the use of differenc libcs, it's not quite clear that the gcc toolchain doesn't have any implications for the executable. Just being (overly) pedantic, not trying to contribute to the FSF/GPL FUD. As for grand-parents point: the kind of scenarios where llvm is "scary" is for instance if a gpu vendor releases a closed compiler (or part of a compiler) for writing massively parallel code and/or shaders. Sometimes such a compiler might be called a driver, even if what it does is (among other things) compile code.
  - cwzwarich 13y ago
    > Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been). Strictly speaking, the conditions of the GPL3 license apply to your GCC compiled code (using the GCC runtime library) unless it is compiled using an "eligible compilation process", i.e. no GPL-incompatible software in the middle: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html
asdasf 13y ago
>The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit. Many do. Any many of them realize they didn't actually want the GPL, they just picked the license they had heard of the most. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion of gcc being limited technically because the GPL is not enough to sufficiently hinder people from writing proprietary tools. >That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS That is an artificial distinction created to try to justify the newspeak meaning of "freedom" where it is defined to mean "imposes restrictions". Developers are users.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > Developers are users. Developers are users, but so are non-developers. The question of whether developers should be able to restrict freedom of non-developers is the question of whether some users should be able to restrict the freedom of other users. This is an ethical (subjective) question. Put another way, should landowners be allowed the freedom of having serfs or indentured servants? Not allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of some people (the freedom to own serfs). But allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of other people (the freedom to be... well, free human beings). As a society, we believe restricting the freedom to be human beings is ethically abhorrent, so we have no qualms (anymore) about restricting people's freedom to own serfs. Maybe you see non-free software as ethically abhorrent, the way slavery is, maybe you don't. But that is the axiom that the free software movement (and the GPL) is based on - to understand free software, you have to understand that principle, even if you disagree with it.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    You are just repeating the same old red herring. Actually free software does not restrict anyone's freedom. I understand GNU/communists are insane, it is not a problem of understanding, but one of dishonesty. Pretending public domain software (actually free) restricts "end users" freedom is a lie.
georgemcbay 13y ago
"The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit." Sometimes they do. I've seen it happen more than once where developers chose the GPL, were asked to change it and then did saying they only chose the GPL because it seemed like a decent default because that's what Linux or whatever used. Even more common are developers who don't fully grasp the practical implications of a particular license, like making a Go library LGPL without a static linking exception, not realizing that LGPL is basically the same as GPL on a platform without dynamic linking or a toolset that is well suited to distributing pre-compiled object files to satisfy the license terms.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  And sometimes developers choose a permissive licence when they would have preferred a copyleft style licence had they realised the implications, same deal. Now LGPL and Go's static linking can simply be about not grasping that Go statically links libraries into the final executable, as it's hardly the norm outside of Go.
forrestthewoods 13y ago
Many authors do naively choose GPL, and many do not. It depends on the author's goal. If their goal is for as many people as possible to use their code then GPL is not the best choice. If the author places higher priority on the Stallman definition of free software then GPL is a great choice. Sometimes authors with the first goal pick GPL because they don't know any better.

davexunit 13y ago

Nothing particularly new here, but it's another reminder about the actual goal of Free Software. A lot of people still don't understand the major distinction between Free Software and Open Source.

zbowling 13y ago

> They have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*) This is a judgement of the motives of Apple that I do not believe is correct by Stallman and he making a straw man case for it. I don't think that Apple "hates" their freedom. I do believe Apple added the restrictions on having only non-GPL code because they understand the problems that it presents legally in the App Store as a distributor and their bourdon under the GPL by being the middle man and redistributing the software in question. Apple would be required to field GPL requests for software in the App Store as the main distributor. This is risk and overhead Apple doesn't want to deal with. They could just as easily make the language not specifically mention GPL at all but instead say that you releasing software on the App Store can't add restrictions, constraints, or additional requirements on how Apple distributes your apps in the App Store not expressly contained the agreement already. This would be the same and would be just as GPL incompatible as it is today.

csmithuk 13y ago
Stallman is infamous for this tactic to the point it's getting tiresome for me. Take a look at the thread on openbsd-misc "real men don't attack straw men" (his title) which was used to attack the OpenBSD project. They didn't stand for the crap stirring then. Whilst I think his basic principles are correct, how he conducts himself is purely extremism and compromises those ideals instantly. Edit: fix a couple of typos. Damn phone!
asdf3 13y ago
Distributions include src packages separate from compiled code, so why couldn't the Apple Store (or any store) do that? This isn't a legal issue; Google allows GPL code on it's app store.
cma 13y ago
Read what he wrote in the asterisk; he is making a distinction about DRM and terms of use. A counter example: sourceforge, as the primary distributor of many GPL'ed binaries, does not have to field GPL requests for software. DMCA safe-habor clause removes that burden; all they have to do is comply with takedown requests. http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/156894/Are-App-Stores-Liable-for-Open-Source-Software-Compliance http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/156894/Are-App-Stores-Liab... "Either way, the next question in the legal analysis is whether the app store qualifies as an online service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Actually, a court may answer this question first as a matter or practicality.[1] The DMCA limits liability of online service providers for infringing material provided to the service by its users (i.e. app developers here) so long as the provider meets certain conditions. Whether an app store can be considered under the DMCA definition of an online service provider has yet to be tested, but it seems likely given the trend of caselaw that has held such vendors as Amazon and YouTube to qualify."

kwantam 13y ago

Context: This discussion originated on the emacs-devel mailing list, where there was a discussion of adding code to company-mode (text completion) explicitly supporting Clang [1]. It was pointed out [2] that RMS has in the past shown a disinclination to incorporate Clang support into GNU projects because of his perception of its encouragement of proprietary software riding the coattails of open source (but not Free) software. The discussion then turned [3] to another instance of this: RMS's disapproval of modifications to GCC that would have made the front end more easily separable from the back end, opening the door to a proprietary end-around (or just outright abuse) of the Free license on the GCC frontend. The article linked above is RMS's response to ESR's comments [4] that such policies have reduced the popularity of GCC compared to Clang. [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg01732.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017... [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg01735.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017... [3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg01739.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017... [4] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html

Touche 13y ago
Clang is free software.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - mattl 13y ago
    the BSD license is a free software license. It's not a copyleft license, or a GNU license, but its a free software license. The 2 and 3 clause BSD licenses are GPL-compatible free software licenses. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD Even the original 4-clause BSD license is a free software license, although the 'advertising' clause is GPL-incompatible. It's also not used much any more. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD

sdegutis 13y ago

> The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal. I want to live in a world where innovation thrives and survival of the best technology reigns. Because the ultimate point of technology is to serve humanity by making our lives better. So stifling innovation just so that everyone has access to source code is backwards.

jhonnycano 13y ago
the point is -who is "us"?- us the developers? us the government? us the users?
angersock 13y ago
The rough line of reasoning here is that non-free software will, eventually, allow business tactics which run counter to software thriving and the best technology reigning.

octo_t 13y ago

Is it bad I just don't care that LLVM has enabled non-free software? Because it has done a h*ck of a lot for opensource software. New languages, new compilers, new optimisers, new IDEs have sprung up around an impressive framework. I also don't understand how LLVM enables non-free software any more than binutils does. I can do: binutils/cat my_file | my_incredibly_none_free_program | binutils/grep my_pattern which is essentially how LLVM works.

themoonbus 13y ago
No, it's not bad. Stallman is an ideologue.
thinkpad20 13y ago
You feel the need to censor "heck"? Seriously though, I agree. Stallman here seems to be adopting almost a religious argument, not a pragmatic one. He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. If he prioritizes freedom over everything else, then more power to him, but to me talking about who "wins" and "loses" on some kind of arbitrary scale of freedom does not make a compelling case against the use of excellent tools like Clang/LLVM.
- zwieback 13y ago
  I think that's the function of Stallman and what he will be remembered as: an absolute that's useful to measure your own position against.
  - smrtinsert 13y ago
    I agree. Also it serves to be notable so people keep talking about it.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. Which is a valid complaint given the nature of Skype. There's also tons of other reasons, though. Primarily technical ones. Either way, software freedom is an important goal and even though I don't necessarily agree with RMS in this case, I understand where he's coming from. So many people seem to have some phobia of accentuating the ethical, freedom and community contexts that the term "free software" implies, preferring the more bitterly pragmatic "open source". That and this is a very typical RMS rant. This is probably the umpteenth one of the same variation, only with $SOFTWARE being Clang/LLVM in this case. For the record, I love Clang/LLVM and support BSD licensing. For a lot of software, having an open source development model without the deeper freedom contexts is good enough.

eliteraspberrie 13y ago

I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later. I don't use the GPL because I cannot honestly say that I understand it entirely. I understand copyleft, but the document is written for lawyers and I am not one. I can't expect users to read it either, much less understand it. I use the BSD licenses because they are simple and clear. If I ever had to defend my intellectual property, I could do so myself, and the case would be over quick. That is more important to me, as a developer without access to lawyers, than ideological battles.

jimktrains2 13y ago
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html it isn't that bad to get through. There are also more than enough analysis of it on the web from reputable sources (I'm looking for good links...). If you understand copyleft, then you know what you're giving up by not using a copyleft, license. Do you not care about what you gain from the copyleft or don't want what you gain?
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  I care about what I lose because of copylefting software. I want software to suck less, and if that occasionally means letting someone be a free-rider on my stuff, let it be. At the same time, the existence of the GPL doesn't preclude people from free-riding either. Look at the embedded toolchains that are little more than GCC with a tiny proprietary wrapper, or the many many companies that use GPLed code, and have internal patches that never see light outside of the company. Restrictive licenses like the GPL are not all sunshine and roses.
- eliteraspberrie 13y ago
  I think most people outside of technology wouldn't easily understand copyleft, and a day might come when I depend on those people. So it's a trade-off between my rights, users' rights, and my peace of mind. The rights I give up, by choosing BSD rather than GPL, I don't think I could enforce without losing my peace of mind.
13y ago

codex 13y ago

Stallman consistently ignores the free market when writing about software freedom. What users want, the free market will provide. If they want customizable software, the market will give it to them. If they only want feature X, the market will give it to them. If they want interop., they will get that too. If they don't care about modifying the source code, well, people won't offer it. The GPL is not what allows users to get what they need from software or technology. It's the market. As long as you have a free market, with able competitors, you don't need the GPL, and the whole discussion of "free software" is a red-herring. Stallman's initial experience with closed software was not in a free market, so I can see how he's grown up with a colored view.

gaius 13y ago
He also got a million dollar grant from the McArthur Foundation, and another one from the Takeda Foundation, and doesn't really understand that most programmers operate in a very different economic reality than his bubble.
davexunit 13y ago
ESR, is that you? All you did was repeat "free market" a bunch of times. Congratulations.
- buzaga41 13y ago
  Besides that, I'm pretty sure when the free market sent down that 10 commandments thing it said not to go around using it's name in vain
- codex 13y ago
  Allow me to continue, then. Stallman's original problem was essentially, "I had a broken car once and I couldn't get the part I needed to repair it. That sucked, so all manufacturers should provide everyone with all the information needed make any replacement part." In today's world that problem really doesn't exist anymore. Software is a mass market product, and the software that is produced already conforms to what people want pretty well. Sure, I'll take cheaper parts for my car, but on the list of humanity's problems, non-GPL software is very, very low.

phamilton 13y ago

He's basically saying: "We must avoid design decisions that allow users to do X, because we disagree with X". Everyone has their own definition of "Free", but to me that seems very similar to Walled Garden decisions regarding my freedom as an end user. You could just as easily say: "We don't want to allow unsigned code to run, because we disagree with not signing code" I guess the difference is that you can fork gcc and start a parallel project. Or you can just let it die as llvm and clang become more and more efficient.

drdaeman 13y ago
Is this still surprising or non-obvious, after decades of GPL vs BSD flamewars (and, in particular, discussions on which one is truly "free")? GPL is restrictive and defending users' freedoms is the exact reason for this. If you care about that, welcome to the GPL side; if you don't want the imposed restrictions but also ready to stop enforcing (through restrictions) GPL-granted freedoms - BSD and company await you.
sdegutis 13y ago
> Or you can just let it die as llvm and clang become more and more efficient. That's my plan.
Anderkent 13y ago
>I guess the difference is that you can fork gcc and start a parallel project. Or you can just let it die as llvm and clang become more and more efficient. And watch as over a decade or two you lose any control over what software you run that you still might have.
gillianseed 13y ago
>He's basically saying: "We must avoid design decisions that allow users to do X, because we disagree with X". Well obviously he wants to void design decisions which allow limiting end user rights given that protecting these end user rights is the entire idea on which FSF and subsequently the GPL licence was founded. Rights which include the source code to see how a program works and be able to modify, run and copy said software. Allowing for proprietary plugins in GCC means no longer protecting these rights, which of course makes no sense from FSF's standpoint as again, protecting end user rights is and creating software which promotes these end user rights is their reason for existance.

lolwutf 13y ago

clamberson 13y ago
Obviously you've never read RMS, because "open source" is one of the things he vehemently fights against.

rwg 13y ago

When I finally realized that the FSF is really about being a social movement and that creating useful software is a non-primary goal (or maybe even a non-goal), my level of annoyance with RMS greatly decreased. Of course, along with that, my level of give-a-shit about the FSF and the GNU project decreased proportionally. Stallman wants you to use Free software because it's free-as-in-ideology, not because it necessarily works well or does what you want.

tcdent 13y ago
You've got it exactly right, but I don't see why that would turn you off of the movement, or at least keep it in mind as you develop and use software.
pantalaimon 13y ago
It's also a social movement that cares about what is the epitome of a first-world-problem.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  Not necessarily. If a 3rd world farmer is hamstrung by licenses on any tools they have (and seeds they grow), that could prevent them from making those tools better, or crossbreeding those seeds. Same with educational software and material. Just because the focus is mainly on software, which is admittedly a 1st world problem, doesn't mean the ideals can't apply to the 3rd world as well.
  - chc 13y ago
    Third-world farmers won't be hamstrung by licenses because the third world does not care about licenses.
    - e12e 13y ago
      Only until a first-world company has a third world militia torch his fields for non-compliance.

surrealize 13y ago

This message conflates two issues in an unfortunate way. One issue is the licensing of GCC, the other issue is the architecture of GCC (how modular it is). No one is arguing that GCC should change licenses. But he seems to think that making GCC more modular would somehow make it less free: > If GCC were to change from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal of freedom very well. There are two embedded assumptions here. First, that making GCC more modular would result in people creating non-free compilers with it (presumably by connecting a non-free component with GCC using an IR rather than linking directly, to get around the GPL). And second, that such use would become more prevalent than just using GCC itself (which is what would "change" GCC from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers). I imagine a few people would use GCC components that way, if it became more modular. But would that use be a significant one? That's unknown. And would that use "no longer serve the goal of freedom"? If a large number of nonfree tools appear that generate and consume a GCC IR, that could boost GCC as well. The GPL seems to be able to defend freedom just fine for all the other gnu software, even the modularly-architected projects. I don't see why it can't ultimately do the same for GCC.

XorNot 13y ago
This is a good take on the deficiencies of Stallman's position here really. Linus stands directly against this sort of idea - his whole take on licensing has always been that he wants to make sure people contribute code back if they modify it, but otherwise can include the kernel in whatever they want - which provides a similar benefit - more people using Linux kernels, more people likely to want to improve Linux kernels. More people using GCC would be great - especially since any 'magic' blackbox components that became useful would start to expose their workings anyway since they'd have to speak to GCC.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >Linus stands directly against this sort of idea Linus and the rest of the Linux kernel developers make it intentionally hard to keep out-of-tree modules working against the kernel for the same reason that GCC does, which is to have the code included into the main project where it will benefit all end users instead of having proprietary/out-of-tree modules/plugins which are available to a select audience. I can't see how you can claim that Linus stands 'directly against this sort of idea'. They seem very much aligned to me.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

"hates our freedom" I tuned out at this point. Polemics tend to bore me and are a fantastic way of turning people off of the rest of your message. (see also: All FSF anti-Windows campaigns)

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Is it really that false, though? I agree it reeks of demagoguery, but it's still not that far from the truth. Where freedom refers to digital freedom, of course.
RamiK 13y ago
Amusing considering such a distinction is polemic.

chubot 13y ago

What are the proprietary compilers that LLVM enabled? Are they significant? Stallman's claim about the practical difference between gcc and LLVM is interesting but I'd like to know more details.

tbrownaw 13y ago
And more importantly, does their existence help or hinder the work done on LLVM?
gurkendoktor 13y ago
I assume that Apple's OpenGL stack that uses LLVM for optimisations on low-end GPUs is still proprietary and not included in source dumps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Description ...but I'm not really sure if that would be an example of extending LLVM or only of using it, which would make all the difference if it was copyleft software.

mcguire 13y ago

Every once in a while, RMS makes a statement that doesn't require translation to avoid seeming ridiculous: "When any program fosters non-free software, that works directly against the overall goal. "Copyleft is our method of making sure that our free software does not generate nonfree competitors which consist of our code plus something else that is off limits to us." http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I am surprised he isn't railing against all the folks selling GCC for extortionate rates to the embedded community. IAR, KEIL, others, $3,000 - $6,000 for a "development tool" which is 99% gcc and 1% some startup code the vendor wrote. Nice margins I guess.

com2kid 13y ago
This is perfectly valid, selling GPL software is fine if you can find someone to pay for them. Wrapping them up in a nice installer and selling a support package, also A-OK, and a frequently recommended business model. Free software doesn't mean free as in price, it is free as in freedom. Keil is a bit different in that you are also paying for their IDE and debugger and such, which are of course non-Free.
blacksmythe 13y ago
>> 99% gcc and 1% some startup code Modifying and selling gcc to compile code optimized for lots of different underpowered processors sounds like an unattractive business model to me, given (I assume) a relatively small number of customers for any given microprocessor type and (again I assume) a significant amount of work for each microprocessor type supported.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Sort of. There are folks who have C compilers optimized for smaller processors, my personal favorite are the folks at ImageCraft. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who take the community developed gcc (which they haven't "optimized" at all) and Eclipse config, and some of their own startup code crt0.a + linkerscript. And then put that together as their tool for $3,000. I'm sure its a wonderful business for them. RMS was railing that clang wasn't embodying the spirit of "free software" because it parts could be proprietary, but he doesn't rail against those people like IAR who keep their parts proprietary but are riding on the shoulders of the community doing the heavy lifting. I find that notable because I like what the folks are trying to achieve with clang and do not like what IAR has done with gcc. Granted it is entirely my own personal pain point.

ridiculous_fish 13y ago

> [Clang and LLVM] have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. It's worth pointing out that GCC also "has been supported" by Apple, especially around PowerPC support and the PFE implementation. If you can get past the insane "War on Terror" rhetoric, that is.

gillianseed 13y ago
It's worth pointing out that Steve Jobs at NeXT was a prime example of the benefits of a policy against proprietary linking as Jobs tried to have GCC be the backend of their (NeXT's) proprietary ObjectiveC front end. He (Jobs) was not allowed to do this due to the licencing (GPL) which is what led to GCC getting a ObjectiveC frontend merged which was then available to all GCC users. Had Jobs had his way, only NeXT users would have had the benefit of the ObjectiveC front end while NeXT would have enjoyed the benefits of the GCC backend.
- nzp 13y ago
  Well, when you spin it like that... I'm no Steve Jobs apologist, but I think it's important to get the facts straight. NeXT wanted to distribute the frontend as .o files which the user would link with the backend, true. Now, the way you present it makes it seems as though NeXT was hell bent on having a proprietary frontend, but were strongarmed by the GPL to release under the GPL. What actually happened is that Jobs asked RMS if he thought it would be OK to distribute the frontend as .o files, to which Stallman said that it probably would be OK (from a legal standpoint), but then consulted a lawyer who told him that the judge would probably think this is not OK. So RMS then tells Jobs that FSF believes this is not allowed by the GPL. Then NeXT produces GPLed frontend. Notice how smooth all of this went. No attempts of subversion by NeXT or disputing FSF's opinion, they asked, were given a legally worthless negative opinion which they accepted and produced a free frontend. So yes, technically it happened because of the GPL (but only on an assumption that the judge would accept FSF's lawyer reasoning) but based on what actually happened there is no evidence of Jobs wanting to "have his way". If Jobs "hated" "our freedom" and the GPL was the only thing that stood between us and slavery as RMS likes to think, this would unlikely go without any friction whatsoever. Sources for what happened: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-objective-c-frontend/ http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-ob... EDIT: Another source, the first paragraph is telling: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pBZdo_bXPc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pB...

yalogin 13y ago

I respect RMS a lot and really appreciate his steadfast promotion of free software (copyleft). But isn't it becoming a moot point in this day and age? A decade or two ago the software tools were important and since all of them were proprietary GNU was sorely needed and all the work done by people on GNU and Linux really was needed. But now the concept of open source and free software (not copy left but just free) has really taken roots and businesses have evolved to circumvent the revenue loss from giving away software. Instead they now created a new closed ecosystem - cloud and hosted services. By moving them away from people's computer they have control and we are pretty much in the same situation as we were a decade ago. So we need a new idea of "copyleft" that applies to services and hosted platforms and not just tools. Isn't it where the battle needs to be now with regards to freedom (as RMS puts it)?.

mempko 13y ago
And RMS recognizes this. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

aurelius 13y ago

"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE is able to benefit from it, and that is good... FOR EVERYONE! For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products. The money that proprietary companies make from being able to incorporate non-copylefted software into their products has a ripple effect. Companies like NVIDIA can provide more jobs, LLVM developers become more highly sought-after, customers benefit from more rapid advances in the technology, and the entire LLVM-based community benefits from work that filters back down from companies like NVIDIA into the mainline LLVM repo. Stallman's argument that projects like LLVM help proprietary companies take away users' rights is simply not true. There would be little benefit for a company like NVIDIA to take from the LLVM community, and be unwilling to give anything back. For one, it would be so much harder for them to hire good people out of that community, which they will desperately need in order to drive their products forward. But look at what has actually happened: NVIDIA are releasing the code to their LLVM-based compiler! Why? Because it doesn't really benefit NVIDIA to enforce a proprietary lock-in on their customers. As for his argument against the Apple App Store, how is it really of benefit to anyone if binaries are "free" the way he thinks they should be? Does anyone really want or need the ability to install a "free" binary onto their iPhone/iPad? Why is wrong for companies to want to protect their proprietary platforms and technology (and also their users) from potentially malicious/illegal code, or code that might brick the device? Oh, that's right! Because Richard Stallman thinks that companies should not be allowed to guard any of their interests when it comes to software. This is an obnoxious opinion, and detrimental to real user freedom. I do not think the world will suffer AT ALL if clang/LLVM has doomed GCC to irrelevance. I was actually glad to read Stallman's email because it signifies that clang/LLVM really are eroding GCC's relevance, to the point where even Stallman is feeling it. Soon, Stallman and his FSF cronies will be relegated to the footnotes of computing history where they belong.

13y ago

crazy1van 13y ago

How does Stallman fund his life? I'm assuming he gets paid a salary. So he's ok with doing work for money himself, but not ok with other people monetizing their efforts in a slightly different way. I don't understand.

NAFV_P 13y ago
> How does Stallman fund his life? Probably with great difficulty, but looking at the guy I bet he's never even seen a suit and tie. Also because of his views on privacy, I think speculating what his average drawings are is a waste of time. I don't think he uses a mobile phone, so what are the chances of him waving his T-accounts in the press' face?
davexunit 13y ago
He does not get paid a salary, afaik. The FSF certainly does not pay him. In the old days he made his money by selling copies of Emacs and documentation and such. These days, he travels the world and speaks at various institutions. Monetization is not at odds with free software, btw. In fact, software that cannot be used commercially is nonfree! There is no moral objection to a programmer being paid to write software. The objection is to software licensing that denies user of that software the "four freedoms". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
tobiasu 13y ago
Grants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Honors_and_awards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Honors_and_awa... It's said he has some serious cash in the bank. Given his eccentric but modest lifestyle, I doubt he'll ever have financial problems.

jarjoura 13y ago

I can sympathize with RMS's argument that companies like Apple & Google can create plugins and modules that are proprietary because LLVM/Clang has a non-copyleft license. However, it would not be in any contributing companies favor to avoid pushing changes back up stream. The pool of people work together to solve really hard problems and they all need to be on the same page. Otherwise that work will become extremely hard to maintain when merges do need to happen. Maybe I do not understand the licensing, but since LLVM is "more" free, couldn't RMS and his FSF members create a GPLv3 version of it that meets his goal?

gillianseed 13y ago
>Otherwise that work will become extremely hard to maintain when merges do need to happen. Why would it be hard to maintain when there is a plugin system which allows you to leverage the compiler functionality through a stable API?
e12e 13y ago
> Maybe I do not understand the licensing, but since LLVM is "more" free, couldn't RMS and his FSF members create a GPLv3 version of it that meets his goal? Yes, if you could get together a lot of people you could fork llvm under a different license -- GPL or proprietary. But forking to GPL would a) be a bit rude, and perhaps more importantly b) most likely just be a dead fork. You would have to contribute a fairly significant patch (I can't think of anything that would qualify at this stage of LLVM/Clang maturity) under GPL for "most" to want to use your version. So, no, they can't practically do that, even if the license permits it. And at any rate; c) Since the architecture of LLVM allows proprietary extensions, even if Clang/LLVM was under the GPL big changes would be needed to "force" the GPL on things like CUDA compilers etc. (This is the point that ERS originally raised, arguably with limited knowledge of actual modern architecture of GCC, that GCC is artificially kept monolithic and by extension tied to a technically inferior architecture). See also: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00181.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00181.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html

saurik 13y ago

In case anyone doesn't realize this: the ARM64 LLVM backend used by Apple in Xcode 5 to target, for example, the iPhone 5S, is currently not open source. There is a vague promise that it will be merged, but the time frame described was itself long, many months have already passed, and it doesn't really seem like much progress has been made since (although of course things could be happening internally at Apple). (In fact, none of the code actually backing Xcode 5 or iOS 7, even LGPL code such as WebCore/JavaScriptCore, has yet to be released; but, in the case of the ARM64 backend, there was a specific discussion about it on the mailing list, and in fact some iOS-specific ARM64 patches to LLVM languished seemingly due to the idea that "well, some day the ARM64 stuff will be merged from Apple", so it is already having "chilling effects".)

guscost 13y ago

The problem I have with the copyleft movement is an impression that they want developers to have less freedom than end users. As an end user I get free access to all GPL source code, but as a developer I can only use that source code to make new software if I follow certain rules. It's as if there was a "free recipes" movement arguing that since their method for cultivating cayenne peppers was under GPL, KFC should be forced to tell everyone how to make their chicken.

Avshalom 13y ago
The GPL/Four Freedoms more or less rejects the distinction between developer and user.
- guscost 13y ago
  That seems to make about as much sense as rejecting the distinction between cooking chicken and eating it.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I put chicken on my plate. I taste it. It is not salty enough. I add some salt. Obviously, we wouldn't call this "cooking chicken", but I'm participating in the creation of my final meal. We can add arbitrarily more, arbitrarily complex steps and ingredients. It totally makes sense to say, "this person is developing software" or "this person is cooking chicken". What is rejected is the notion that eating the chicken means you're not taking any role in shaping it except those roles explicitly given to you. When I make boxed macaroni and cheese, I add nutmeg, and the result is way better. It's a good thing I have access to enough of the guts of the recipe to make that change (... or maybe it would be better if I ate less boxed macaroni and cheese, but I think you follow the metaphor).

jnbiche 13y ago

What many GPL supporters fail to understand is that GPL doesn't hinder or hurt big companies at all. If they find a GPL-licensed piece of software they need, they just pay their developers to make another proprietary one. With the exception of huge projects like Linux, it's a rounding error for them. No, the only ones the GPL hinders are small-time freelance devs and small devs shops who are trying to make a living. Often, these are the same devs who are leading open source projects of their own. When they need to create a proprietary project to pay the bills, a GPL-licensed library is usually the end of the road for their project, since they won't have the manpower to replicate it on their own. Aside from these issues, do we really care that we can't access the source of Subtle Text? As long as it's got a good API, I don't see the big problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of open source, and have realized numerous modest projects under the MIT license. But proprietary projects, even ones that use my MIT code, don't offend me to the core like they do RMS and co-ideologues (incidentally, I feel like I'd really get along with RMS as a person, even if he might shun me).

chrisdone 13y ago
tl;dr: “I disagree with the core principle of the FSF and the GPL”.

mortdeus 13y ago

This argument is moot. Proprietary software doesn't have to live at a dissonance from FLOSS software, nor does free software protect the integrity of freedom. So there are proprietary compilers being derived from LLVM... How does that prevent somebody from throwing out the proprietary compiler on principle in order to support the open source alternative? Forcing somebody to respect your ideological beliefs regarding freedom is just as much a wolf in sheep's clothing as a notion to force somebody to bend to your will regarding how the software you use may function by design. There is a place for open source licenses and there is a place for free software licenses. To say free software protects the interest of technological innovation better than open source software can is a position based on a foundation of ignorant dissension. Science has little use for politics playing a major role as a core value. 99% of all people Using software could care less about the freedom of software, and the 1% who do care are split between the engineers who value the ideals of innovation by collaboration, and the executives who understand that too much freedom means everybody gets stuck with a bounced cheque.

gillianseed 13y ago
Your argument is 'moot'. Free software is no more 'forcing' anyone to respect your ideological beliefs than proprietary software is, in neither case you can 'prevent anyone from throwing it out on principle'. Proprietary limits the rights of end users, you are free to not use proprietary software. Free software secures rights of end users, you are free to not use Free software.

dradtke 13y ago

I just don't get why GCC needs to cripple itself; shouldn't the (in)ability to incorporate GCC be handled by the license? It's a legal issue, not a technical one. Sure, making it easier to plug in to other programs enables proprietary software developers to do so as much as it does free software developers, but the former is still illegal if the software is released that way.

JulianMorrison 13y ago

In practise, has LLVM/Clang turned into an unfreedom-fest? I haven't noticed as much. It seems to be remaining free in practise.

nycticorax 13y ago

"[The Clang and LLVM developers] object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them." I would call this an Orwellian use of language. Stallman and the FSF have adopted a particular definition of "freedom", which is a good deal more particular that the usual definition, but they seem to consistently act as if it was the one and only definition, and therefore that anyone opposed to it is opposed to freedom. Nevertheless, on one reasonable definition of "freedom", permissive licenses are more free than copyleft licenses. On another reasonable definition (the FSFs), copyleft licenses are more free than permissive licenses. The statement quoted above implicitly assumes that there is only one definition of freedom, and it's the one the FSF favors.

BjoernKW 13y ago

I think Stallman has very much lost sight of who his true 'adversaries' are. I consider myself a strong proponent of open source software but there are reasons - imagined or real - for not making everything open source or for using a permissive licence. Not using a permissive licence for a software effectively bars most companies from using that software. In my opinion licences such as Affero GPL aren't free at all because they limit what you can do on your own machines. I've experienced this first hand with very useful libraries such as iText. Sure, iText und many other AGPL-licensed libraries are available under an additional proprietary licence. However, this isn't very much about free software either but simply another sales argument: "You've got to publish the valuable source code of your application unless you pay us a lot of money. In that case: Screw free software!" Sounds a bit like blackmail to me. I understand that the FSF is an ideological movement that's based on strong principles. Stubbornly insisting on these principles without considering pragmatic concerns does a disservice to free software adoption, though.