3 ms·

I don't know why you would make this argument now. Stallman argued clearly in January why copyleft was more important to him than technical superiority. https:/

by alayne 12y ago

I don't know why you would make this argument now. Stallman argued clearly in January why copyleft was more important to him than technical superiority. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

ginko 12y ago
Which is kind of sad, since the major reason why GCC took off in the first place was because it was technically superior. http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/GccEarlyEnthusiasm http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/GccEarlyEnthusi...
cwyers 12y ago
Everybody already knew that copyleft was more important to Stallman than technical superiority. The problem is that there are a lot of people who put a higher value on technical superiority than copyleft. Those people could be counted upon as GCC users and contributors as long as GCC was the technically best compiler available as open source (all free software is open source, not all open source is free software, etc.). RMS's goal seems to be to have GCC not be replaced by LLVM. From a reply downthread of ESR's post: > This means it is more than a potential problem. > The possible harm is to replace copylefted GNU package with noncopylefted code. They must have worked for a long long time to replace the capabilities GDB already had. So RMS thinks it's a "problem" and "harmful" if lldb replaced gdb. So RMS cares not just about what GCC does, but whether or not other people adopt GCC as well. In terms of that goal, it does not matter what RMS considers more important. RMS is not going to convince everyone else to use GCC instead of LLVM by simply restating his arguements about copyleft forcefully again and again. That doesn't mean he has to sacrifice his feelings about copyleft. But it does mean he has to give a damn about being technically superior to LLVM and lldb if he wants to beat them.
- vidarh 12y ago
  He does not need to beat LLVM for GCC to remain available. It would be detrimental to GCC to lose developers, sure, but I think one of the reasons for the disconnect between RMS and others is that RMS' goals does not require a large user base, and so he is willing to make decisions that seems counterproductive to anyone who cares about usability and user acceptance first. The mere continued existence of GCC (and the other GNU tools) in many ways safeguards the freedoms he cares about: It allows users to jump ship if they in the future are prevented from doing what they want with the alternatives. It's not the ideal scenario, but it better serves his goals than giving in, and potentially see these freedoms slipping away at some future point. Of course he'd be better served by GCC outcompeting LLVM. But if that isn't happening, his goals are better served by slowing developer migration than "capitulating" in a way that might affect developer mindshare by putting LLVM tools in front of more people. As you say, of course the problem with this is that a lot of us care more about the technical superiority. Especially when the competition is a project that is as open as LLVM.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by alayne 12y ago

ginko 12y ago

Which is kind of sad, since the major reason why GCC took off in the first place was because it was technically superior. http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/GccEarlyEnthusiasm http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/GccEarlyEnthusi...

cwyers 12y ago

Everybody already knew that copyleft was more important to Stallman than technical superiority. The problem is that there are a lot of people who put a higher value on technical superiority than copyleft. Those people could be counted upon as GCC users and contributors as long as GCC was the technically best compiler available as open source (all free software is open source, not all open source is free software, etc.). RMS's goal seems to be to have GCC not be replaced by LLVM. From a reply downthread of ESR's post: > This means it is more than a potential problem. > The possible harm is to replace copylefted GNU package with noncopylefted code. They must have worked for a long long time to replace the capabilities GDB already had. So RMS thinks it's a "problem" and "harmful" if lldb replaced gdb. So RMS cares not just about what GCC does, but whether or not other people adopt GCC as well. In terms of that goal, it does not matter what RMS considers more important. RMS is not going to convince everyone else to use GCC instead of LLVM by simply restating his arguements about copyleft forcefully again and again. That doesn't mean he has to sacrifice his feelings about copyleft. But it does mean he has to give a damn about being technically superior to LLVM and lldb if he wants to beat them.

vidarh 12y ago
He does not need to beat LLVM for GCC to remain available. It would be detrimental to GCC to lose developers, sure, but I think one of the reasons for the disconnect between RMS and others is that RMS' goals does not require a large user base, and so he is willing to make decisions that seems counterproductive to anyone who cares about usability and user acceptance first. The mere continued existence of GCC (and the other GNU tools) in many ways safeguards the freedoms he cares about: It allows users to jump ship if they in the future are prevented from doing what they want with the alternatives. It's not the ideal scenario, but it better serves his goals than giving in, and potentially see these freedoms slipping away at some future point. Of course he'd be better served by GCC outcompeting LLVM. But if that isn't happening, his goals are better served by slowing developer migration than "capitulating" in a way that might affect developer mindshare by putting LLVM tools in front of more people. As you say, of course the problem with this is that a lot of us care more about the technical superiority. Especially when the competition is a project that is as open as LLVM.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]