3 ms·
He even touches that directly: > The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the ba
by ygra 13y ago
He even touches that directly:
> 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 -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us.
... which pretty much is the answer to your last question.
- thinkpad20 13y agoHe assumes that helping proprietary software is a bad thing (well, more accurately, he asserts this axiomatically). However, proprietary software can have many benefits. Many if not most successful software businesses have made great contributions to open-source and the development of free software. I know for a fact that a huge amount of linux development is driven by for-profit companies. If a company can make a profit, make an excellent product, and pay it forward by contributing to open projects as well, it sounds like a win-win to me. This might violate RMS's axiom that only free software is good, but as Hitchens says, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
- lmkg 13y agoYou're right, I had missed some of the implications of that statement. Basically, he considers the additional free software created to be a negative rather than a positive, because it gives an even bigger benefit to proprietary software.