5 ms·

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,

by 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.
  - ygra 13y ago
    Re Skype: He also suggests just making a normal phone call. Which has pretty much the same problems: It's an opaque, closed system with pretty much the only difference that there are multiple companies controlling it instead of just one.
    - ochs 13y ago
      I don't think that's true. Phone systems are standardised. There is also free telephony software (like asterisk). The cell phone stuff is more secretive, but it's still more open than Skype, which is completely obfuscated, proprietary and centralised.
      - belorn 13y ago
        I would only add that I can own my phone. I can not own my own skype client. The complaint about using phone would be much better suited for 1950 where "the phone company" owned the phone. You called, was asked to choose between 3 different colors, and then a few days/weeks later they came and installed a phone with the clear label that said "property of the phone company".
- pachydermic 13y ago
  Dude. rms founded the freaking FSF. If he doesn't support free software, then what the hell is he doing? I think what he wrote here makes total sense, even if I use tons of nonfree software myself. I value convenience and performance more than rms does - to him, freedom is much more important. I think his argument is just that the whole point of GNU and the FSF is to make free software - if they compromised on that, then what would they stand for? And I think that argument makes perfect sense.
  - gtirloni 13y ago
    You've got to admire RMS for that. In the previous email, ESR is essentially saying "GCC is doomed if it doesn't change, it will be legacy" and RMS response is one of no compromises. I respect that, even though I disagree almost completely and have no alignment with what the FSF proposes.
  - thinkpad20 13y ago
    I understand that he needs and wants to support the cause of free software, but you can do that without making the hyperbolic statements he is making. Being as ideologically rigid as he is can be counter-productive, as people like me are less likely to take his arguments seriously if they seem to be founded more on dogma than sound arguments.
fleitz 13y ago
RMS has a ideology of what free software is that ignores how much 'free' software actually gets delivered to users. As an example XCode is not free but since Apple can make an ecosystem around LLVM/clang it creates the profits necessary to pay developers to put lots of work into LLVM/clang that people can use under a BSD/MIT license. RMS has a kind of natural law approach to freedom while most 'free' countries have a limited amount of freedom that people give up in order to have an organization that guarantees the remaining freedoms. RMS is much more concerned about maintaing ideological purity than implementing a less ideologically pure system that may or may not benefit users more. Fundamentally once GNU code supports clang, GCC dev stops because it's codebase a horrible mess.
lmkg 13y ago
> Is it bad I just don't care that LLVM has enabled non-free software? Because it has done a hck of a lot for opensource software.* This presents an interesting (to RMS) quandary. I take it as a given that he prioritizes the freedom of software over its technical merits (as discussed in other threads). But, even just from the freedom perspective: LLVM increases the amount of proprietary software produced, and also increases the amount of free software produced. Does RMS consider this a worthwhile trade-off? Or does he think that less software overall, and less free software in particular, is favorable to more free software existing and also some proprietary software.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  RMS appears to believe that the creation and distribution of non-Free software is a categorical and unscionable evil, such that anything that anything that encourages it (whatever other benefits it provides) is categorically morally wrong, and anything that discourages it is categorically morally obligatory.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    There a bunch of facts that contradict this, e.g. the exstance of the LGPL, RMS supporting BSD licencing of Xiph codecs etc. His approach is a lot more nuanced and tactical than it is often portrayed.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > There a bunch of facts that contradict this, e.g. the exstance of the LGPL, RMS supporting BSD licencing of Xiph codecs etc. Those don't actually contradict it in any way that I can see. > His approach is a lot more nuanced and tactical than it is often portrayed. Sure. That doesn't mean that the long-term goal isn't as I've described it (and, in fact, RMS has pretty explicitly said it is for him, though that may or may not be true of the FSF.)
      - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
mempko 13y ago
I am glad you don't care. I do care. good argument. cats are over there ----->

by octo_t 13y ago

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.
- ygra 13y ago
  Re Skype: He also suggests just making a normal phone call. Which has pretty much the same problems: It's an opaque, closed system with pretty much the only difference that there are multiple companies controlling it instead of just one.
  - ochs 13y ago
    I don't think that's true. Phone systems are standardised. There is also free telephony software (like asterisk). The cell phone stuff is more secretive, but it's still more open than Skype, which is completely obfuscated, proprietary and centralised.
    - belorn 13y ago
      I would only add that I can own my phone. I can not own my own skype client. The complaint about using phone would be much better suited for 1950 where "the phone company" owned the phone. You called, was asked to choose between 3 different colors, and then a few days/weeks later they came and installed a phone with the clear label that said "property of the phone company".
pachydermic 13y ago
Dude. rms founded the freaking FSF. If he doesn't support free software, then what the hell is he doing? I think what he wrote here makes total sense, even if I use tons of nonfree software myself. I value convenience and performance more than rms does - to him, freedom is much more important. I think his argument is just that the whole point of GNU and the FSF is to make free software - if they compromised on that, then what would they stand for? And I think that argument makes perfect sense.
- gtirloni 13y ago
  You've got to admire RMS for that. In the previous email, ESR is essentially saying "GCC is doomed if it doesn't change, it will be legacy" and RMS response is one of no compromises. I respect that, even though I disagree almost completely and have no alignment with what the FSF proposes.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  I understand that he needs and wants to support the cause of free software, but you can do that without making the hyperbolic statements he is making. Being as ideologically rigid as he is can be counter-productive, as people like me are less likely to take his arguments seriously if they seem to be founded more on dogma than sound arguments.

fleitz 13y ago

RMS has a ideology of what free software is that ignores how much 'free' software actually gets delivered to users. As an example XCode is not free but since Apple can make an ecosystem around LLVM/clang it creates the profits necessary to pay developers to put lots of work into LLVM/clang that people can use under a BSD/MIT license. RMS has a kind of natural law approach to freedom while most 'free' countries have a limited amount of freedom that people give up in order to have an organization that guarantees the remaining freedoms. RMS is much more concerned about maintaing ideological purity than implementing a less ideologically pure system that may or may not benefit users more. Fundamentally once GNU code supports clang, GCC dev stops because it's codebase a horrible mess.

lmkg 13y ago

> Is it bad I just don't care that LLVM has enabled non-free software? Because it has done a hck of a lot for opensource software.* This presents an interesting (to RMS) quandary. I take it as a given that he prioritizes the freedom of software over its technical merits (as discussed in other threads). But, even just from the freedom perspective: LLVM increases the amount of proprietary software produced, and also increases the amount of free software produced. Does RMS consider this a worthwhile trade-off? Or does he think that less software overall, and less free software in particular, is favorable to more free software existing and also some proprietary software.

dragonwriter 13y ago
RMS appears to believe that the creation and distribution of non-Free software is a categorical and unscionable evil, such that anything that anything that encourages it (whatever other benefits it provides) is categorically morally wrong, and anything that discourages it is categorically morally obligatory.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  There a bunch of facts that contradict this, e.g. the exstance of the LGPL, RMS supporting BSD licencing of Xiph codecs etc. His approach is a lot more nuanced and tactical than it is often portrayed.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > There a bunch of facts that contradict this, e.g. the exstance of the LGPL, RMS supporting BSD licencing of Xiph codecs etc. Those don't actually contradict it in any way that I can see. > His approach is a lot more nuanced and tactical than it is often portrayed. Sure. That doesn't mean that the long-term goal isn't as I've described it (and, in fact, RMS has pretty explicitly said it is for him, though that may or may not be true of the FSF.)
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago

mempko 13y ago

I am glad you don't care. I do care. good argument. cats are over there ----->