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

61–70 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#61

Post by hacknat »

kwantam wrote: post #5

Context: 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)…

If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? You shall know a tree by it's fruits. It wouldn't bother me one way or another whether LLVM was copyleft or not, the people who run it are more pleasant to work with.

I think the biggest hurdle to people caring about copyleft is the sheer tonnage of disrespect people like RMS show to others. Nobody wants to work with a curmudgeon.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#62

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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)

I think that, to a large extent, creating useful software, inasmuch as it is a pursuit of the FSF, isn't an independent goal so much as a mechanism for acheiving the goal of obstructing the development and spread of non-Free software.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#63

Post by msbarnett »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #49
Touche wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clang is free software.

It[0] doesn't seem like a free[1] license. [0]: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/LICENSE.TXT [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Edit: Yes, it is a free license, as other's have pointed out.

This is the NCSA/University of Illinois license. GNU classifies it as a free license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#65

Post by forrestthewoods »

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…

Many authors do naively choose GPL, and many do not. It depends on the author's goal. If their goal is for as many people as possible to use their code then GPL is not the best choice. If the author places higher priority on the Stallman definition of free software then GPL is a great choice. Sometimes authors with the first goal pick GPL because they don't know any better.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#67

Post by jfb »

intermatrigator wrote: post #11
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…

end users do not give a shit about source code (or software licensing at all).

It depends on who your end users are. They are not necessarily strictly consumers of software -- in fact, RMS' history clearly points to a concern for the rights of the interactive web of hackers circa the early 1970s. It is open for debate as to how relevant this focus is in today's very different looking software environment.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#68

Post by jimktrains2 »

pantalaimon wrote: post #53
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.

Not necessarily.

If a 3rd world farmer is hamstrung by licenses on any tools they have (and seeds they grow), that could prevent them from making those tools better, or crossbreeding those seeds. Same with educational software and material.

Just because the focus is mainly on software, which is admittedly a 1st world problem, doesn't mean the ideals can't apply to the 3rd world as well.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#69

Post by fleitz »

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…

free-as-in-ideology is brilliant, it so succinctly captures my feelings on RMS.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#70

Post by lmkg »

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…

> Is it bad I just don't care that LLVM has enabled non-free software? Because it has done a hck of a lot for opensource software.*

This presents an interesting (to RMS) quandary. I take it as a given that he prioritizes the freedom of software over its technical merits (as discussed in other threads). But, even just from the freedom perspective: LLVM increases the amount of proprietary software produced, and also increases the amount of free software produced. Does RMS consider this a worthwhile trade-off? Or does he think that less software overall, and less free software in particular, is favorable to more free software existing and also some proprietary software.

Post reply on HN