4 ms·
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 su
by 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.
- fleitz 13y agoExcept the the claim he is making is that free software is fundamentally different than open source. "The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal." Perhaps you could provide quotes where RMS in the article says that clang is 'free software'. According to RMS in the article clang is a major set back for free software. (because it's better than their piece of crap)
- _jwo_ 13y agohttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html clang is "free software" according to his own definition. It is entirely possible for a specific free software program to be a setback to the goals of the free software movement. His position is that copyleft licenses (very often, and certainly in this specific case) advance the goal of freedom more effectively than non-copyleft licenses. The differing values in this case basically amounts to whether one considers it worth using a copyleft license to ensure that the software being used remains free, or whether one considers it a drawback that a copyleft license may prevent it being used in proprietary software.
- kevin_bauer 13y agoInteresting! The last time i looked, almost 100% of all compiled software of the linux-franchise was gcc-compiled, even a large portion of iOS and android software is gcc-compiled, and it doesn't stop there! Furthermore which compiler-suite served as so long so good in the "dark" pre-LLVM ages? Biting the hand, which feeds you comes to mind...