5 ms·

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

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.

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.