6 ms·

> 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. Though, the point is,

> 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. Though, the point is, you can make free software work the way you want or work better. You're _allowed_ to. That isn't necessarily the case with other software; that is the point of free software.

fleitz 13y ago
If this were true than clang would be considered free software by RMS... There is more to RMS's version of 'freedom' than just being able to modify the code, the AGPL is a great example of this.
- drcube 13y ago
  Clang IS free software, and RMS agrees. The difference is that GCC discourages proprietary extensions and subsequent lockdown.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    > I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. Actually he doesn't....he considers Clang/LLVM to be open source and not free, Clang/LLVM does not restrict users from developing their own extensions and licensing them as they see fit which ironically makes the software not free (according to the RMS ideological software freedom purity test).
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      Nope. The NCSA license is considered a free software license and is GPL compatible according to the FSF. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
      - fleitz 13y ago
        That's fucking great, my uncle bob thinks it is too, but we're talking about RMS not the FSF.
        drcube 13y ago
        Do you even know who Richard Stallman is?
        fleitz 13y ago
        Yes, I just imagined that despite his polemic nature there were still other people who could put up with dealing with him who also were part of the FSF and therefore the FSF could hold positions divergent from those of RMS. If the FSF consists solely of the opinions of RMS then I retract the previous statement and would say that the page mentioned expresses an opinion inconsistent with what is expressed in the email.
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Generally speaking, the FSF and RMS agree. Nothing in the thread is inconsistent with this. RMS observes that the NCSA isn't copyleft, which is true, but that's a different dimension than free versus non-free.
        fleitz 13y ago
        But not different than free vs. open source. "The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal." Clang wants to make a great compiler, they chose the NCSA license to facilitate that, according to the article makes it open source software and not 'free software' rather than 'unfree software'
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Values and the question of whether a given license meets RMS's technical requirements for being free software are also two different metrics. He even explains that in this email. OSS puts an emphasis on the practical benefit of open source, whereas free software emphasizes the principle. And RMS never calls Clang nonfree in this email, he talks about nonfree derivatives of Clang.
    - drcube 13y ago
      Open source and Free software are essentially equivalent when it comes to licensing. The difference is in their motivation. So when RMS says that, he's saying Clang/LLVM opened up the source code in order help their software perform better and see wider usage. Whereas RMS's goal for GCC is to ensure freedom for its users. Technical superiority is great, but it is not the goal, and may be sacrificed if necessary to achieve that goal. He's not saying Clang isn't free software, he's saying their ultimate goal is not freedom, as contrasted with the FSF.
      - fleitz 13y ago
        There's a couple claims here: 1) Free means freedom in the copyleft sense. 2) Free means freedom in the open source sense. 3) Free means free as in beer. In the article RMS appears to be using definition 1, elsewhere on the FSF site the FSF uses 2. "In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the users of computing. The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal." It's very clear that "free software" in the article is definition 1, since MIT/BSD falls clearly in category 2, LLVM/Clang is NOT free software according to the definitions used in the article, and therefore the position RMS is advocating in the article is that LLVM/Clang is not free software, but rather open source software. Yes to everyone else in the world, including the FSF, Clang/LLVM is free software but according to RMS it is not.
        drcube 13y ago
        You're confounding issues here. RMS is in the position of a critic of the US government, rightly claiming that, while your country is "free", it installs and supports dictatorships all over the world. It is possible to be unfree, and not support other dictatorships, like Cuba. It is possible to be both unfree, and support dictatorships, like the USSR. RMS's goal with GCC, is to be like the mythical free country that also supports freedom and discourages dictatorships elsewhere in the world. In other words, your software can be free, and yet support and aid those who would take your freedom away. This is the claim RMS is making of Clang.
        13y ago
    - com2kid 13y ago
      Clang/LLVM does not restrict users from developing their own extensions and licensing them as they see fit which ironically makes the software not free (according to the RMS ideological software freedom purity test). This restricts users freedom, that is his point. GPL is not about the rights of the programmer, it is about the rights of the end user.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - gress 13y ago
        The end users of gcc and clang are programmers.
pmr_ 13y ago
You are correct in that the license is free, but it isn't a copyleft license. This is a purely political decision: RMS wants gcc not only to be free software but he also wants it to be unusable to create non-free derivatives thus making it an active tool in furthering free software. clang undermines this because you can create non-free software based on it thus making it a tool that can easily be used to restrict freedom.
- epistasis 13y ago
  > clang undermines this because you can create non-free software based on it thus making it a tool that can easily be used to restrict freedom. It seems that implicit in this claim is that if non-free software exists, its mere existence restricts freedom. Would that be a fair statement of anybody's position in this debate, or have I gone off the rails?
  - belorn 13y ago
    When non-free software is distributed, it is done so under the threat that the recipient will be thrown in jail if they share or modify the software. Will the threat itself restrict freedom? Yes. Can threats cause harm? yes. However, so long its not distributed, no one is threatened. So, on your question, no, its mere existence will not restricts freedom. The restriction happens once it has been distributed.
- fleitz 13y ago
  Exactly, if you read the whole thing it sounds like George Bush > 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. > The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. > If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom. > 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

fleitz 13y ago

If this were true than clang would be considered free software by RMS... There is more to RMS's version of 'freedom' than just being able to modify the code, the AGPL is a great example of this.

drcube 13y ago
Clang IS free software, and RMS agrees. The difference is that GCC discourages proprietary extensions and subsequent lockdown.
- fleitz 13y ago
  > I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. Actually he doesn't....he considers Clang/LLVM to be open source and not free, Clang/LLVM does not restrict users from developing their own extensions and licensing them as they see fit which ironically makes the software not free (according to the RMS ideological software freedom purity test).
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Nope. The NCSA license is considered a free software license and is GPL compatible according to the FSF. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
    - fleitz 13y ago
      That's fucking great, my uncle bob thinks it is too, but we're talking about RMS not the FSF.
      - drcube 13y ago
        Do you even know who Richard Stallman is?
        fleitz 13y ago
        Yes, I just imagined that despite his polemic nature there were still other people who could put up with dealing with him who also were part of the FSF and therefore the FSF could hold positions divergent from those of RMS. If the FSF consists solely of the opinions of RMS then I retract the previous statement and would say that the page mentioned expresses an opinion inconsistent with what is expressed in the email.
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Generally speaking, the FSF and RMS agree. Nothing in the thread is inconsistent with this. RMS observes that the NCSA isn't copyleft, which is true, but that's a different dimension than free versus non-free.
        fleitz 13y ago
        But not different than free vs. open source. "The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal." Clang wants to make a great compiler, they chose the NCSA license to facilitate that, according to the article makes it open source software and not 'free software' rather than 'unfree software'
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Values and the question of whether a given license meets RMS's technical requirements for being free software are also two different metrics. He even explains that in this email. OSS puts an emphasis on the practical benefit of open source, whereas free software emphasizes the principle. And RMS never calls Clang nonfree in this email, he talks about nonfree derivatives of Clang.
  - drcube 13y ago
    Open source and Free software are essentially equivalent when it comes to licensing. The difference is in their motivation. So when RMS says that, he's saying Clang/LLVM opened up the source code in order help their software perform better and see wider usage. Whereas RMS's goal for GCC is to ensure freedom for its users. Technical superiority is great, but it is not the goal, and may be sacrificed if necessary to achieve that goal. He's not saying Clang isn't free software, he's saying their ultimate goal is not freedom, as contrasted with the FSF.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      There's a couple claims here: 1) Free means freedom in the copyleft sense. 2) Free means freedom in the open source sense. 3) Free means free as in beer. In the article RMS appears to be using definition 1, elsewhere on the FSF site the FSF uses 2. "In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the users of computing. The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal." It's very clear that "free software" in the article is definition 1, since MIT/BSD falls clearly in category 2, LLVM/Clang is NOT free software according to the definitions used in the article, and therefore the position RMS is advocating in the article is that LLVM/Clang is not free software, but rather open source software. Yes to everyone else in the world, including the FSF, Clang/LLVM is free software but according to RMS it is not.
      - drcube 13y ago
        You're confounding issues here. RMS is in the position of a critic of the US government, rightly claiming that, while your country is "free", it installs and supports dictatorships all over the world. It is possible to be unfree, and not support other dictatorships, like Cuba. It is possible to be both unfree, and support dictatorships, like the USSR. RMS's goal with GCC, is to be like the mythical free country that also supports freedom and discourages dictatorships elsewhere in the world. In other words, your software can be free, and yet support and aid those who would take your freedom away. This is the claim RMS is making of Clang.
        13y ago
  - com2kid 13y ago
    Clang/LLVM does not restrict users from developing their own extensions and licensing them as they see fit which ironically makes the software not free (according to the RMS ideological software freedom purity test). This restricts users freedom, that is his point. GPL is not about the rights of the programmer, it is about the rights of the end user.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - gress 13y ago
      The end users of gcc and clang are programmers.

pmr_ 13y ago

You are correct in that the license is free, but it isn't a copyleft license. This is a purely political decision: RMS wants gcc not only to be free software but he also wants it to be unusable to create non-free derivatives thus making it an active tool in furthering free software. clang undermines this because you can create non-free software based on it thus making it a tool that can easily be used to restrict freedom.

epistasis 13y ago
> clang undermines this because you can create non-free software based on it thus making it a tool that can easily be used to restrict freedom. It seems that implicit in this claim is that if non-free software exists, its mere existence restricts freedom. Would that be a fair statement of anybody's position in this debate, or have I gone off the rails?
- belorn 13y ago
  When non-free software is distributed, it is done so under the threat that the recipient will be thrown in jail if they share or modify the software. Will the threat itself restrict freedom? Yes. Can threats cause harm? yes. However, so long its not distributed, no one is threatened. So, on your question, no, its mere existence will not restricts freedom. The restriction happens once it has been distributed.
fleitz 13y ago
Exactly, if you read the whole thing it sounds like George Bush > 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. > The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. > If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom. > 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