Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#121

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:03 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#122

Post by gress » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:03 PM UTC

sepeth wrote: post #96

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." And I think, that's a better position to be in; I mean, freedom is more important than to have good softwares.

Execept it's not even that. It's a narrow definition of freedom. Free as in socialism vs free as in capitalism.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#123

Post by thinkpad20 » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:04 PM UTC

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,…

I understand that he needs and wants to support the cause of free software, but you can do that without making the hyperbolic statements he is making. Being as ideologically rigid as he is can be counter-productive, as people like me are less likely to take his arguments seriously if they seem to be founded more on dogma than sound arguments.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#124

Post by e12e » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:06 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #108

jimktrains2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Third-world farmers won't be hamstrung by licenses because the third world does not care about licenses.

Only until a first-world company has a third world militia torch his fields for non-compliance.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#125

Post by epistasis » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:07 PM UTC

pmr_ wrote: post #104

jimktrains2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You are correct in that the license is free, but it isn't a copyleft license. This is a purely political decision: RMS wants gcc not only to be free software but he also wants it to be unusable to create non-free derivatives thus making it an active tool in furthering free software. clang undermines this because you can create non-free software based on it thus making it a tool that can easily be used to restrict fre…

> clang undermines this because you can create non-free software based on it thus making it a tool that can easily be used to restrict freedom.

It seems that implicit in this claim is that if non-free software exists, its mere existence restricts freedom. Would that be a fair statement of anybody's position in this debate, or have I gone off the rails?

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#126

Post by jamesaguilar » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:08 PM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #116

drcube wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Nope. The NCSA license is considered a free software license and is GPL compatible according to the FSF. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#127

Post by drcube » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:08 PM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #116

drcube wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Open source and Free software are essentially equivalent when it comes to licensing. The difference is in their motivation.

So when RMS says that, he's saying Clang/LLVM opened up the source code in order help their software perform better and see wider usage. Whereas RMS's goal for GCC is to ensure freedom for its users. Technical superiority is great, but it is not the goal, and may be sacrificed if necessary to achieve that goal.

He's not saying Clang isn't free software, he's saying their ultimate goal is not freedom, as contrasted with the FSF.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#128

Post by sepeth » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:09 PM UTC

gress wrote: post #122

sepeth wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." And I think, that's a better position to be in; I mean, freedom is more important than to have good softwares.

Execept it's not even that. It's a narrow definition of freedom. Free as in socialism vs free as in capitalism.

I believe, it is broader than you think:

we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you...

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#129

Post by gurkendoktor » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:09 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #55

What are the proprietary compilers that LLVM enabled? Are they significant? Stallman's claim about the practical difference between gcc and LLVM is interesting but I'd like to know more details.

I assume that Apple's OpenGL stack that uses LLVM for optimisations on low-end GPUs is still proprietary and not included in source dumps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Description

...but I'm not really sure if that would be an example of extending LLVM or only of using it, which would make all the difference if it was copyleft software.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#130

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:11 PM UTC

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…

I'm no expert, but this is not how I see RMS's point of view.

I think he does care how well stuff works and whether it does what we want--he just takes a very long-term view of that goal.

For example, let's say an ok V1.0 piece of open-source software is released under the BSD license. A startup takes the source, modifies it to create an awesome product, and releases that as a closed-source product.

Everyone loves it and adoption goes through the roof. The company gets hugely successful and is bought by Big Tech Corp Inc....who really just wants the talent. They EOL the great product.

Because it is closed source, the best that customers can do now is to reach back to original mediocre BSD'd code and try to replicate the development that went into the awesome product.

BUT--go back to the beginning. If the mediocre product had been GPL'd, then the startup would have been obligated to release their changes as source code. So even though it was EOL'd by Big Tech Corp, the customer base has the up-to-date source code, and can carry on development and support as a community.

Now, I'm not going to say that is a 100% accurate view of the world...the obvious counter-argument is that aggressive licenses like the GPL3 actually discourage business support of products. Thus a GPL3'd mediocre V1.0 would never have been picked up by the startup in the first place, and never would have been developed into an awesome product.

I won't say I know which argument is correct, but I will say I can at least see where RMS is coming from.