4 ms·
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 hu
by 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 agoI 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).
- mverwijs 13y agoThe license is bad, not the software. > If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? How is the license being bad influenced by, or of influence on, the attitude of the developers? Are you saying that surely the license can't be that bad, since the software is written by nice folks?