4 ms·

> It took many years before the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) changed its runtime library exemption in a way that allowed for GCC plugins, largely because of fe

> It took many years before the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) changed its runtime library exemption in a way that allowed for GCC plugins, largely because of fears that companies might distribute proprietary, closed-source plugins. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that purported "free as in freedom" software is/was being held back because of fears of what someone can do with that freedom? Though once useful, the GPL and especially the AGPL are harmful, restrictive licenses that have outlived their usefulness and in no way represent "freedom".

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Sanddancer 12y ago
Stallman's held this view for a very long while. About fifteen years ago, he told someone to memory hole a GCC target to emit JVM bytecode [1] because of the vague threat that someone could take that, create a theoretical frontend that worked on JVM bytecode, and feed /that/ result into a proprietary compiler. Stallman's fear of the proprietary bogeyman has hamstrung GCC and Free toolchains from being a platform anywhere near as decent as other projects in providing realtime feedback into program design. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html
rayiner 12y ago
The most free world is not the one where there are the fewest restrictions. Restricting peoples' natural freedom to kill each other or steal from each other, for example, arguably makes everyone more free. The GPL is based on the same principle. Restricting certain antisocial behavior increases net freedom.
- hga 12y ago
  "natural freedom to kill each other" Although that's not a binary thing, I have the natural and legal right to kill in legitimate self-defense. In rare situations, stealing is allowed to prevent a greater loss. In this case, most of us, even those of us who don't like the GPL in practice like me, are not primarily arguing the GPL, but RMS's stewardship of GCC and GNU Emacs about something that's allowed in I believe every FOSS license. Just not in these two projects under the aegis of the FSF. Unless and until they fork, or RMS is somehow convinced, whic history says is not the way to bet.
  - leoc 12y ago
    > In this case, most of us, even those of us who don't like the GPL in practice like me, are not primarily arguing the GPL However, people are making the argument that this proves that GPL<BSD, and so it needs to be rebutted until they stop making it. Speaking of which, it's particularly strange for people to take the position that RMS's behaviour here is anti-freedom and thus obnoxious, and therefore GPL sucks. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that he could pull the same stunt just as easily if GCC were under a BSD license. In fact he could achieve the same effect even more easily, because he wouldn't have to rely solely on constantly changing the AST interface, or the threat of doing that: he could put future official versions of GCC under a new license which tried to put up legal barriers to AST access, or threaten to do so. More broadly, it's hard to imagine any consistent position under which RMS attempting to exert some de facto proprietary control over GCC is tyrannical, but licenses which would have given him the authority to make future official GCC versions de jure completely or semi-proprietary are upholding freedom! Of course, you can argue that RMS' behaviour here proves that he is being hypocritical when he denounces others for exercising proprietary control of software, through proprietary works derived from FOSS software or by other means. But just as obviously, catching someone in hypocrisy doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong. Moreover, it needs to be addressed not only because people are drawing incorrect conclusions about GPL vs. BSD, but because it shows that they don't understand what's going on here. The problem here isn't licensing terms, it's Too Big To Fork https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6810259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6810259 . "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Speaking of which, it's strange. Here RMS is using his position to exert some de facto proprietary control over GCC, a big, hard-to-replace hairball of code with lots of clients locked in to its interface, and widespread anger is (quite appopriately) the result. Yet the Web browser vendors have honed this kind of behaviour into a routine, regularly exerting their de facto power over the Web, and sometimes in nakedly self-serving and destructive ways, and people have been conditioned to hail and venerate this as the Open Web.
    - hga 12y ago
      My only quibble is that since RMS has wrapped himself and this issue in the flag of the GPL and "the [foundation] for which it stands", in terms of the instant controversy, and e.g. conflicts with OpenBSD, they are indivisible. But I hope I've made it very clear that I indeed view this solely as a stewardship issue that could be true under any FOSS licence, and I repeat that the GPL is a tolerable licence for something like the GCC (well, it might doom serious Ada to the proprietary world, but, eh).
rogerbinns 12y ago
The one freedom the GPL doesn't have is the freedom to take the freedom away. In BSD and similar you easily can. It is the taking away of freedom that is at the crux of all this.
- insaneirish 12y ago
  > In BSD and similar you easily can. Nope. My taking BSD code and producing a proprietary, closed source product it in no way impacts someone else's freedom to do the same, nor does it remove some freedom they previously had.
  - rogerbinns 12y ago
    The freedoms on the original are indeed unchanged in both cases. The freedom on the derived work is what can be taken away with non-GPL.
    - DasIch 12y ago
      There was never any freedom on the derived work to begin with, so no freedom can be taken away. Especially considering that in practice people don't just take a look at a project they might derive a project from, see the GPL license and go "Huh, I guess I have to use GPL then". The GPL nerd imagination in play here is as the ridiculous as the imagination of crypto nerds[1]. [1]: http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Sanddancer 12y ago

Stallman's held this view for a very long while. About fifteen years ago, he told someone to memory hole a GCC target to emit JVM bytecode [1] because of the vague threat that someone could take that, create a theoretical frontend that worked on JVM bytecode, and feed /that/ result into a proprietary compiler. Stallman's fear of the proprietary bogeyman has hamstrung GCC and Free toolchains from being a platform anywhere near as decent as other projects in providing realtime feedback into program design. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html

rayiner 12y ago

The most free world is not the one where there are the fewest restrictions. Restricting peoples' natural freedom to kill each other or steal from each other, for example, arguably makes everyone more free. The GPL is based on the same principle. Restricting certain antisocial behavior increases net freedom.

hga 12y ago
"natural freedom to kill each other" Although that's not a binary thing, I have the natural and legal right to kill in legitimate self-defense. In rare situations, stealing is allowed to prevent a greater loss. In this case, most of us, even those of us who don't like the GPL in practice like me, are not primarily arguing the GPL, but RMS's stewardship of GCC and GNU Emacs about something that's allowed in I believe every FOSS license. Just not in these two projects under the aegis of the FSF. Unless and until they fork, or RMS is somehow convinced, whic history says is not the way to bet.
- leoc 12y ago
  > In this case, most of us, even those of us who don't like the GPL in practice like me, are not primarily arguing the GPL However, people are making the argument that this proves that GPL<BSD, and so it needs to be rebutted until they stop making it. Speaking of which, it's particularly strange for people to take the position that RMS's behaviour here is anti-freedom and thus obnoxious, and therefore GPL sucks. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that he could pull the same stunt just as easily if GCC were under a BSD license. In fact he could achieve the same effect even more easily, because he wouldn't have to rely solely on constantly changing the AST interface, or the threat of doing that: he could put future official versions of GCC under a new license which tried to put up legal barriers to AST access, or threaten to do so. More broadly, it's hard to imagine any consistent position under which RMS attempting to exert some de facto proprietary control over GCC is tyrannical, but licenses which would have given him the authority to make future official GCC versions de jure completely or semi-proprietary are upholding freedom! Of course, you can argue that RMS' behaviour here proves that he is being hypocritical when he denounces others for exercising proprietary control of software, through proprietary works derived from FOSS software or by other means. But just as obviously, catching someone in hypocrisy doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong. Moreover, it needs to be addressed not only because people are drawing incorrect conclusions about GPL vs. BSD, but because it shows that they don't understand what's going on here. The problem here isn't licensing terms, it's Too Big To Fork https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6810259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6810259 . "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Speaking of which, it's strange. Here RMS is using his position to exert some de facto proprietary control over GCC, a big, hard-to-replace hairball of code with lots of clients locked in to its interface, and widespread anger is (quite appopriately) the result. Yet the Web browser vendors have honed this kind of behaviour into a routine, regularly exerting their de facto power over the Web, and sometimes in nakedly self-serving and destructive ways, and people have been conditioned to hail and venerate this as the Open Web.
  - hga 12y ago
    My only quibble is that since RMS has wrapped himself and this issue in the flag of the GPL and "the [foundation] for which it stands", in terms of the instant controversy, and e.g. conflicts with OpenBSD, they are indivisible. But I hope I've made it very clear that I indeed view this solely as a stewardship issue that could be true under any FOSS licence, and I repeat that the GPL is a tolerable licence for something like the GCC (well, it might doom serious Ada to the proprietary world, but, eh).

rogerbinns 12y ago

The one freedom the GPL doesn't have is the freedom to take the freedom away. In BSD and similar you easily can. It is the taking away of freedom that is at the crux of all this.

insaneirish 12y ago
> In BSD and similar you easily can. Nope. My taking BSD code and producing a proprietary, closed source product it in no way impacts someone else's freedom to do the same, nor does it remove some freedom they previously had.
- rogerbinns 12y ago
  The freedoms on the original are indeed unchanged in both cases. The freedom on the derived work is what can be taken away with non-GPL.
  - DasIch 12y ago
    There was never any freedom on the derived work to begin with, so no freedom can be taken away. Especially considering that in practice people don't just take a look at a project they might derive a project from, see the GPL license and go "Huh, I guess I have to use GPL then". The GPL nerd imagination in play here is as the ridiculous as the imagination of crypto nerds[1]. [1]: http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/