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

111–120 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#111

Post by yarou »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #68
pantalaimon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. You can extend it to pharma drugs as well, which potentially could save millions of lives. I respect rms' work philosophically, and he needs to take a hard line because his detractors are so entrenched in the power structures of the world.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#112

Post by chimeracoder »

atonse wrote: post #12
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…

Do you have any examples where end users have been screwed by a program that was compiled using LLVM?

> a program that was compiled using LLVM?

Neither compiler affects the licences of the output. In the case of a compiler, the "end user" is the end user of a compiler (which in today's world is a developer, but 20 years ago may not have been).

End users are "screwed over" in this sense every time permissively-licensed free software is forked into proprietary versions that the users cannot do one of the following

1) Study (view the source) 2) Modify (edit the source) 3) Distribute (send the source or binary to another person) 4) Distribute modified versions of the software

All of these freedoms include the freedom to hire someone else to do this for you, so even if you are not a developer, you still have the potential to benefit from free software, the same way all drivers benefit from the fact that any mechanic can service a car (not just the dealer).

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#113

Post by stock_toaster »

fleitz wrote: post #69
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.

I think "free" is too much of a loaded term. "libre" seems to work a bit better.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#114

Post by gillianseed »

phamilton wrote: post #21

He's basically saying: "We must avoid design decisions that allow users to do X, because we disagree with X". Everyone has their own definition of "Free", but to me that seems very similar to Walled Garden decisions regarding my freedom as an end user. You could just as easily say: "We don't want to allow unsigned code to run, because we disagree with not signing code" I guess the difference is that you can fork gcc…

>He's basically saying: "We must avoid design decisions that allow users to do X, because we disagree with X".

Well obviously he wants to void design decisions which allow limiting end user rights given that protecting these end user rights is the entire idea on which FSF and subsequently the GPL licence was founded.

Rights which include the source code to see how a program works and be able to modify, run and copy said software.

Allowing for proprietary plugins in GCC means no longer protecting these rights, which of course makes no sense from FSF's standpoint as again, protecting end user rights is and creating software which promotes these end user rights is their reason for existance.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#115

Post by jjoonathan »

hacknat wrote: post #61
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.

> If LLVM is so bad

RMS doesn't have a problem with LLVM because it's bad, he has a problem with it because it's good.

> the biggest hurdle to people caring about copyleft is the sheer tonnage of disrespect people like RMS show to others

No, the biggest hurdles to people caring about copyleft are by far the incompatibilities with accepted practices and existing software that make it a lot of work to comply with copyleft ideals.

RMS's tone never seemed disrespectful to me. Uncompromising and occasionally blunt, yes, but never disrespectful. What would you have had him do differently? Compromise his ideals? Spin out a comforting but insincere apology that focused on licensing technicalities rather than the underlying philosophical issues?

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#116

Post by fleitz »

drcube wrote: post #95
fleitz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were true than clang would be considered free software by RMS... There is more to RMS's version of 'freedom' than just being able to modify the code, the AGPL is a great example of this.

Clang IS free software, and RMS agrees. The difference is that GCC discourages proprietary extensions and subsequent lockdown.

> I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom.

Actually he doesn't....he considers Clang/LLVM to be open source and not free, Clang/LLVM does not restrict users from developing their own extensions and licensing them as they see fit which ironically makes the software not free (according to the RMS ideological software freedom purity test).

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#117

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #68
pantalaimon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 3rd world uses software too, you know...

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#118

Post by thinkpad20 »

ygra wrote: post #109
lmkg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.* 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 i…

He even touches that directly: > The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us. ... which pretty much is the answer to your last question.

He assumes that helping proprietary software is a bad thing (well, more accurately, he asserts this axiomatically). However, proprietary software can have many benefits. Many if not most successful software businesses have made great contributions to open-source and the development of free software. I know for a fact that a huge amount of linux development is driven by for-profit companies. If a company can make a profit, make an excellent product, and pay it forward by contributing to open projects as well, it sounds like a win-win to me. This might violate RMS's axiom that only free software is good, but as Hitchens says, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#119

Post by lmkg »

ygra wrote: post #109
lmkg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.* 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 i…

He even touches that directly: > The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us. ... which pretty much is the answer to your last question.

You're right, I had missed some of the implications of that statement. Basically, he considers the additional free software created to be a negative rather than a positive, because it gives an even bigger benefit to proprietary software.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#120

Post by gtirloni »

pachydermic wrote: post #79
thinkpad20 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You feel the need to censor "heck"? Seriously though, I agree. Stallman here seems to be adopting almost a religious argument, not a pragmatic one. He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. If he prioritizes freedom over everything else, then more power to him, but to me talking about who "wins" and "loses" on some kind of arbitrary scale of freedom does not make a compelling case again…

Dude. rms founded the freaking FSF. If he doesn't support free software, then what the hell is he doing? I think what he wrote here makes total sense, even if I use tons of nonfree software myself. I value convenience and performance more than rms does - to him, freedom is much more important. I think his argument is just that the whole point of GNU and the FSF is to make free software - if they compromised on that,…

You've got to admire RMS for that. In the previous email, ESR is essentially saying "GCC is doomed if it doesn't change, it will be legacy" and RMS response is one of no compromises.

I respect that, even though I disagree almost completely and have no alignment with what the FSF proposes.

Post reply on HN