Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

gcc.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#51

Post by tcdent »

rwg wrote: post #32

When I finally realized that the FSF is really about being a social movement and that creating useful software is a non-primary goal (or maybe even a non-goal), my level of annoyance with RMS greatly decreased. Of course, along with that, my level of give-a-shit about the FSF and the GNU project decreased proportionally. Stallman wants you to use Free software because it's free-as-in-ideology, not because it necessar…

You've got it exactly right, but I don't see why that would turn you off of the movement, or at least keep it in mind as you develop and use software.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#52

Post by fleitz »

octo_t wrote: post #7

Is 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 which is…

RMS has a ideology of what free software is that ignores how much 'free' software actually gets delivered to users. As an example XCode is not free but since Apple can make an ecosystem around LLVM/clang it creates the profits necessary to pay developers to put lots of work into LLVM/clang that people can use under a BSD/MIT license.

RMS has a kind of natural law approach to freedom while most 'free' countries have a limited amount of freedom that people give up in order to have an organization that guarantees the remaining freedoms. RMS is much more concerned about maintaing ideological purity than implementing a less ideologically pure system that may or may not benefit users more.

Fundamentally once GNU code supports clang, GCC dev stops because it's codebase a horrible mess.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#53

Post by pantalaimon »

rwg wrote: post #32

When I finally realized that the FSF is really about being a social movement and that creating useful software is a non-primary goal (or maybe even a non-goal), my level of annoyance with RMS greatly decreased. Of course, along with that, my level of give-a-shit about the FSF and the GNU project decreased proportionally. Stallman wants you to use Free software because it's free-as-in-ideology, not because it necessar…

It's also a social movement that cares about what is the epitome of a first-world-problem.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#54

Post by vezzy-fnord »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #45

"hates our freedom" I tuned out at this point. Polemics tend to bore me and are a fantastic way of turning people off of the rest of your message. (see also: All FSF anti-Windows campaigns)

Is it really that false, though? I agree it reeks of demagoguery, but it's still not that far from the truth. Where freedom refers to digital freedom, of course.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#56

Post by mcguire »

Every once in a while, RMS makes a statement that doesn't require translation to avoid seeming ridiculous:

"When any program fosters non-free software, that works directly against the overall goal.

"Copyleft is our method of making sure that our free software does not generate nonfree competitors which consist of our code plus something else that is off limits to us."

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#57

Post by jfb »

rwg wrote: post #32

When I finally realized that the FSF is really about being a social movement and that creating useful software is a non-primary goal (or maybe even a non-goal), my level of annoyance with RMS greatly decreased. Of course, along with that, my level of give-a-shit about the FSF and the GNU project decreased proportionally. Stallman wants you to use Free software because it's free-as-in-ideology, not because it necessar…

FSF is deontological and the "open source" movement, consequentialist. My personal ethics lean former, but I just can't quit my unethical Macintosh.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#58

Post by gillianseed »

georgemcbay wrote: post #25
beering wrote: post #2

The 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…

"The 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." Sometimes they do. I've seen it happen more than once where developers chose the GPL, were asked to change it and then did saying they only chose the GPL because it seemed like a decent default because that's what Linux o…

And sometimes developers choose a permissive licence when they would have preferred a copyleft style licence had they realised the implications, same deal.

Now LGPL and Go's static linking can simply be about not grasping that Go statically links libraries into the final executable, as it's hardly the norm outside of Go.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#59

Post by jimktrains2 »

rwg wrote: post #32

When I finally realized that the FSF is really about being a social movement and that creating useful software is a non-primary goal (or maybe even a non-goal), my level of annoyance with RMS greatly decreased. Of course, along with that, my level of give-a-shit about the FSF and the GNU project decreased proportionally. Stallman wants you to use Free software because it's free-as-in-ideology, not because it necessar…

> Stallman wants you to use Free software because it's free-as-in-ideology, not because it necessarily works well or does what you want.

Though, the point is, you can make free software work the way you want or work better. You're _allowed_ to. That isn't necessarily the case with other software; that is the point of free software.

Post reply on HN