5 ms·
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 b
by 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 agoWhen 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 agoExactly, 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
- belorn 13y agoLet me just say that your comment sound as Hitler, and we can be done with Association fallacies altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
- fleitz 13y agoI must thank you, I'm kind of flattered you think I'm that charismatic. Sorry about the charismatic way I presented my views, perhaps I should have mentioned my penchant for eating the raw uncooked flesh of freshly slain animals to make it more clear as to whether I was intending to advocate views similar to Hitler. You may want to look into these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion
- belorn 13y agoIm sorry, my subtle way of apparently was too subtle. I was not comparing you to Hitler, but rather made an association fallacy in order to create an irrelevant association. If there was any persuasion in it, it was to not use irrelevant association since it do not add anything beyond a appeal to emotion, spun around a fallacy. Hitler, like George Bush, creates a guilt by association while the association is irrelevant tied to the subject matter. The result thus becomes a polite discussion around the more creative ways of eating meat.
- shawkinaw 13y agoInteresting that allowing you to do whatever you want with a piece of software (e.g. selling non-free derivatives) is considered restricting freedom.
- sparkie 13y agoAllowing you to do whatever you want is not the same as allowing everyone to do whatever they want. You can't understand free software from an egocentric view of the world. A non-free derivative will ultimately restrict someone's freedom, hence, considering it restricting freedom is perfectly applicable. We could debate forever on the semantics of which is more free, but I don't think having the freedom to restrict the freedoms of others is going to encourage freedom.
- _Simon 13y agoIt's not freedom in any sense of the word. The FSF is at best a fiefdom, but in all reality a dictatorship. Stallmans utopian future is more 1984 than any of the actors he accuses. This whole thing is bullshit.
- ZeroGravitas 13y agoThat's a common misconception amongst software developers, but in fact its not your freedom that's being defended, its the users of software. So let's rephrase that: Interesting that preventing users from doing something with a bit of software (e.g. selling non-free derivatives) is considered restricting freedom. Kind of self evident when stated from the users point of view really.