5 ms·

While I sometimes wish it were not the case, most companies do not exist to improve the world... The purpose of most companies is to make profits, not to advanc

by rinon 12y ago

While I sometimes wish it were not the case, most companies do not exist to improve the world... The purpose of most companies is to make profits, not to advance free software. Making software freer can often cost companies profits, hence, this is sub-optimal. As such, one can hardly blame the workplace for the restriction, since it may indeed be in the company's (and, to some extent, their employees') best interest. Perhaps no one should be blamed for the inability to use GPLed projects: it's simply a conflict in goals.

sanxiyn 12y ago
Paying employees paychecks costs companies profits, but employees love paychecks so companies make deals. Many employees in the software industry, and almost all of LLVM developers, love software freedom, so companies can make deals here too. I think the primary problem is that Apple (IMO, irrationally) refuses to make deals with GPL projects.
- sounds 12y ago
  The article seems to offer a hint: the earliest publicly discussed major GPL violation was by NeXT computing when Steve Jobs attempted and failed (thanks to RMS' GPL enforcement work) to make the Objective C front-end to GCC proprietary.
  - maxlybbert 12y ago
    There's a little more information about that exchange at http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-... (Stallman brought it up when enforcing the GPL on another free software project: "They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but since I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free."). It sounds like Stallman wasn't entirely sure the GPL would have prevented Jobs from doing what he wanted, but was convinced by a lawyer that the FSF would have a strong case ("It seemed to me at the time that it was [legal] ... but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer. What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be 'subterfuges' and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is 'really' one program, rather than how it is labeled.").
- mitchty 12y ago
  I think the primary problem was the FSF doubling down on copyleft with gplv3. I think at that point companies realized they'd need to take a more active role in how things are licensed. And despite LLVM's and clang's history with Apple, it is most decidedly not an Apple project any longer. The LLVM foundation handles that. Looking at commits Google is a likely contender for the biggest overall contributor at this point. I think this is a good example of mutually assured collaboration amongst companies. Sure some stuff gets split off and made proprietary, like the nvidia shader compiler, but overall more goes into it than out. I agree with Linus on gpl v2 and gpl v3, v3 is off into the crazy territory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU If anything I'd say this is an example of how taking too extreme of stances even if well intentioned, and I'll even grant them as "right on their own merits" can backfire in the end. RMS can consider llvm/clang an attack on gpl if he wants, but in the end I only see it as developers wanting to have improved tools and are willing to collaborate to do it. the fact that clang-format exists is a good testament to how gcc isn't doing itself any favors with its political stance in regards to being useful in other categories. But all thats just like my opinion man.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > I agree with Linus on gpl v2 and gpl v3, v3 is off into the crazy territory. That's... not what Linus said. To paraphrase, he doesn't like the anti-tivoization clause for his own code because he would rather get driver patches from Tivo that he can use on other hardware than prohibit them from using Linux, and he doesn't like how the or any later version clause is being used to make nontrivial changes to the license, which is why he didn't use it to begin with. Linus exaggerates kind of a lot. People need to understand that. He said that he "hates" GPLv3, by which he apparently means only that he prefers GPLv2 for Linux, and then goes on to say that GPLv3 may be a great license and he has no problem with people using it for other software. And I still don't see anything in GPLv3 that you would expect anyone to find shocking or highly objectionable. It's basically just patching the unintentional holes people have discovered over time in GPLv2. 99% of people would never even want to do any of the things it prohibits over the GPLv2. But as the article notes, some proprietary software companies like to spread FUD, and so a lot of FUD has been spread.
- anon1385 12y ago
  >Apple (IMO, irrationally) refuses to make deals with GPL projects. That isn't true. Apple actually proposed integrating LLVM into GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html Also, I see a lot of people repeating the mistaken idea that Apple are opposed to GPLv3 due to the patent clauses. Even RMS is repeating this[1]. It's not the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8868994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8868994 [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00485.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg004...

by rinon 12y ago

sanxiyn 12y ago

Paying employees paychecks costs companies profits, but employees love paychecks so companies make deals. Many employees in the software industry, and almost all of LLVM developers, love software freedom, so companies can make deals here too. I think the primary problem is that Apple (IMO, irrationally) refuses to make deals with GPL projects.

sounds 12y ago
The article seems to offer a hint: the earliest publicly discussed major GPL violation was by NeXT computing when Steve Jobs attempted and failed (thanks to RMS' GPL enforcement work) to make the Objective C front-end to GCC proprietary.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  There's a little more information about that exchange at http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-... (Stallman brought it up when enforcing the GPL on another free software project: "They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but since I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free."). It sounds like Stallman wasn't entirely sure the GPL would have prevented Jobs from doing what he wanted, but was convinced by a lawyer that the FSF would have a strong case ("It seemed to me at the time that it was [legal] ... but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer. What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be 'subterfuges' and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is 'really' one program, rather than how it is labeled.").
mitchty 12y ago
I think the primary problem was the FSF doubling down on copyleft with gplv3. I think at that point companies realized they'd need to take a more active role in how things are licensed. And despite LLVM's and clang's history with Apple, it is most decidedly not an Apple project any longer. The LLVM foundation handles that. Looking at commits Google is a likely contender for the biggest overall contributor at this point. I think this is a good example of mutually assured collaboration amongst companies. Sure some stuff gets split off and made proprietary, like the nvidia shader compiler, but overall more goes into it than out. I agree with Linus on gpl v2 and gpl v3, v3 is off into the crazy territory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU If anything I'd say this is an example of how taking too extreme of stances even if well intentioned, and I'll even grant them as "right on their own merits" can backfire in the end. RMS can consider llvm/clang an attack on gpl if he wants, but in the end I only see it as developers wanting to have improved tools and are willing to collaborate to do it. the fact that clang-format exists is a good testament to how gcc isn't doing itself any favors with its political stance in regards to being useful in other categories. But all thats just like my opinion man.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > I agree with Linus on gpl v2 and gpl v3, v3 is off into the crazy territory. That's... not what Linus said. To paraphrase, he doesn't like the anti-tivoization clause for his own code because he would rather get driver patches from Tivo that he can use on other hardware than prohibit them from using Linux, and he doesn't like how the or any later version clause is being used to make nontrivial changes to the license, which is why he didn't use it to begin with. Linus exaggerates kind of a lot. People need to understand that. He said that he "hates" GPLv3, by which he apparently means only that he prefers GPLv2 for Linux, and then goes on to say that GPLv3 may be a great license and he has no problem with people using it for other software. And I still don't see anything in GPLv3 that you would expect anyone to find shocking or highly objectionable. It's basically just patching the unintentional holes people have discovered over time in GPLv2. 99% of people would never even want to do any of the things it prohibits over the GPLv2. But as the article notes, some proprietary software companies like to spread FUD, and so a lot of FUD has been spread.
anon1385 12y ago
>Apple (IMO, irrationally) refuses to make deals with GPL projects. That isn't true. Apple actually proposed integrating LLVM into GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html Also, I see a lot of people repeating the mistaken idea that Apple are opposed to GPLv3 due to the patent clauses. Even RMS is repeating this[1]. It's not the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8868994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8868994 [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00485.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg004...