10 ms·

Context: This discussion originated on the emacs-devel mailing list, where there was a discussion of adding code to company-mode (text completion) explicitly s

by 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
    Oh boy, here we go again.
    - Codhisattva 13y ago
      passes the popcorn
      - quenlinlom 13y ago
        Go back to Reddit. Hacker News isn't a place where you post memetic responses for peer acceptance.
        sbuk 13y ago
        Seriously?
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I assume not. "Go back to reddit" is a memetic response presumably posted for peer acceptance.
        sbuk 13y ago
        I know. The question was rhetorical. I really shouldn't have to explain that.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I thought it fun to spell it out.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        sdegutis 13y ago
        I interpreted what he and I both said as a statement of the pointlessness of this ongoing debate that everyone knows has no end. That seems like an on-topic statement to make on HN, especially if it deters others from jumping on that perpetual bandwagon.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - msbarnett 13y ago
    The FSF itself classifies all non-ad clause versions of the BSD license as free software licenses.
    - mattl 13y ago
      Even the ad-clause license is free, it's just GPL incompatible.
  - i80and 13y ago
    BSD is absolutely free software; it is not, however, copyleft. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  It[0] doesn't seem like a free[1] license. [0]: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Edit: Yes, it is a free license, as other's have pointed out.
  - msbarnett 13y ago
    This is the NCSA/University of Illinois license. GNU classifies it as a free license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA
- streptomycin 13y ago
  Clang is also "a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers", which is the problem RMS has with it.
hacknat 13y ago
If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? You shall know a tree by it's fruits. It wouldn't bother me one way or another whether LLVM was copyleft or not, the people who run it are more pleasant to work with. I think the biggest hurdle to people caring about copyleft is the sheer tonnage of disrespect people like RMS show to others. Nobody wants to work with a curmudgeon.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- streptomycin 13y ago
  If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? Who said it was bad? People have said it is not copyleft. I think the biggest hurdle to people caring about copyleft is the sheer tonnage of disrespect people like RMS show to others. Nobody wants to work with a curmudgeon. I think that's ridiculous. Do you really think corporate backers of LLVM would just ignore their economic incentives for a non-copyleft compiler if RMS was friendlier?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Who said it was bad? RMS. > People have said it is not copyleft. RMS says that it is bad because it is not copyleft. Specifically, he says "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". Do you not think that "terrible setback for our community" is a subset of "bad"?
    - streptomycin 13y ago
      I interpreted "bad" in his post to mean "technologically bad" not "morally bad". On second thought, I might have misinterpreted his post. In that case, then the obvious answer to "If LLVM is so (morally) bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with?" is that niceness and political ideology are only very loosely correlated, at best. The other part of my comment still stands, though (I think).

by kwantam 13y ago

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
  Oh boy, here we go again.
  - Codhisattva 13y ago
    passes the popcorn
    - quenlinlom 13y ago
      Go back to Reddit. Hacker News isn't a place where you post memetic responses for peer acceptance.
      - sbuk 13y ago
        Seriously?
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I assume not. "Go back to reddit" is a memetic response presumably posted for peer acceptance.
        sbuk 13y ago
        I know. The question was rhetorical. I really shouldn't have to explain that.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I thought it fun to spell it out.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        I interpreted what he and I both said as a statement of the pointlessness of this ongoing debate that everyone knows has no end. That seems like an on-topic statement to make on HN, especially if it deters others from jumping on that perpetual bandwagon.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- msbarnett 13y ago
  The FSF itself classifies all non-ad clause versions of the BSD license as free software licenses.
  - mattl 13y ago
    Even the ad-clause license is free, it's just GPL incompatible.
- i80and 13y ago
  BSD is absolutely free software; it is not, however, copyleft. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
jimktrains2 13y ago
It[0] doesn't seem like a free[1] license. [0]: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Edit: Yes, it is a free license, as other's have pointed out.
- msbarnett 13y ago
  This is the NCSA/University of Illinois license. GNU classifies it as a free license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA
streptomycin 13y ago
Clang is also "a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers", which is the problem RMS has with it.

hacknat 13y ago

If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? You shall know a tree by it's fruits. It wouldn't bother me one way or another whether LLVM was copyleft or not, the people who run it are more pleasant to work with. I think the biggest hurdle to people caring about copyleft is the sheer tonnage of disrespect people like RMS show to others. Nobody wants to work with a curmudgeon.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
streptomycin 13y ago
If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? Who said it was bad? People have said it is not copyleft. I think the biggest hurdle to people caring about copyleft is the sheer tonnage of disrespect people like RMS show to others. Nobody wants to work with a curmudgeon. I think that's ridiculous. Do you really think corporate backers of LLVM would just ignore their economic incentives for a non-copyleft compiler if RMS was friendlier?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Who said it was bad? RMS. > People have said it is not copyleft. RMS says that it is bad because it is not copyleft. Specifically, he says "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". Do you not think that "terrible setback for our community" is a subset of "bad"?
  - streptomycin 13y ago
    I interpreted "bad" in his post to mean "technologically bad" not "morally bad". On second thought, I might have misinterpreted his post. In that case, then the obvious answer to "If LLVM is so (morally) bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with?" is that niceness and political ideology are only very loosely correlated, at best. The other part of my comment still stands, though (I think).