Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
1–10 of 338 posts
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#2The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit.
That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS. And that's great when the end user is you and me, but it's also not surprising that we, as developers, will happily throw end user rights under the bus if we think we can make some money (e.g. SaaS, app stores, etc.) or profit otherwise.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#3Nothing particularly new here, but it's another reminder about the actual goal of Free Software. A lot of people still don't understand the major distinction between Free Software and Open Source.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#4> They have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*)
This is a judgement of the motives of Apple that I do not believe is correct by Stallman and he making a straw man case for it. I don't think that Apple "hates" their freedom.
I do believe Apple added the restrictions on having only non-GPL code because they understand the problems that it presents legally in the App Store as a distributor and their bourdon under the GPL by being the middle man and redistributing the software in question. Apple would be required to field GPL requests for software in the App Store as the main distributor. This is risk and overhead Apple doesn't want to deal with.
They could just as easily make the language not specifically mention GPL at all but instead say that you releasing software on the App Store can't add restrictions, constraints, or additional requirements on how Apple distributes your apps in the App Store not expressly contained the agreement already. This would be the same and would be just as GPL incompatible as it is today.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#5Context:
This discussion originated on the emacs-devel mailing list, where there was a discussion of adding code to company-mode (text completion) explicitly supporting Clang [1].
It was pointed out [2] that RMS has in the past shown a disinclination to incorporate Clang support into GNU projects because of his perception of its encouragement of proprietary software riding the coattails of open source (but not Free) software.
The discussion then turned [3] to another instance of this: RMS's disapproval of modifications to GCC that would have made the front end more easily separable from the back end, opening the door to a proprietary end-around (or just outright abuse) of the Free license on the GCC frontend.
The article linked above is RMS's response to ESR's comments [4] that such policies have reduced the popularity of GCC compared to Clang.
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017...
[2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017...
[3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg017...
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#6> The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal.
I want to live in a world where innovation thrives and survival of the best technology reigns. Because the ultimate point of technology is to serve humanity by making our lives better. So stifling innovation just so that everyone has access to source code is backwards.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#7Is it bad I just don't care that LLVM has enabled non-free software? Because it has done a h*ck of a lot for opensource software. New languages, new compilers, new optimisers, new IDEs have sprung up around an impressive framework.
I also don't understand how LLVM enables non-free software any more than binutils does. I can do:
binutils/cat my_file | my_incredibly_none_free_program | binutils/grep my_pattern
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#8> They have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*) This is a judgement of the motives of Apple that I do not believe is correct by Stallman and he making a straw man case for it. I don't think that Apple "hates" their freedom. I do believe Apple added the restrictions on having only non-GPL code because they unders…
Stallman is infamous for this tactic to the point it's getting tiresome for me.
Take a look at the thread on openbsd-misc "real men don't attack straw men" (his title) which was used to attack the OpenBSD project. They didn't stand for the crap stirring then.
Whilst I think his basic principles are correct, how he conducts himself is purely extremism and compromises those ideals instantly.
Edit: fix a couple of typos. Damn phone!
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#9> They have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*) This is a judgement of the motives of Apple that I do not believe is correct by Stallman and he making a straw man case for it. I don't think that Apple "hates" their freedom. I do believe Apple added the restrictions on having only non-GPL code because they unders…
Distributions include src packages separate from compiled code, so why couldn't the Apple Store (or any store) do that? This isn't a legal issue; Google allows GPL code on it's app store.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#10I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later.
I don't use the GPL because I cannot honestly say that I understand it entirely. I understand copyleft, but the document is written for lawyers and I am not one. I can't expect users to read it either, much less understand it.
I use the BSD licenses because they are simple and clear. If I ever had to defend my intellectual property, I could do so myself, and the case would be over quick. That is more important to me, as a developer without access to lawyers, than ideological battles.