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

141–150 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#141

Post by cwzwarich »

chimeracoder wrote: post #112
atonse wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) S…

> 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).

Strictly speaking, the conditions of the GPL3 license apply to your GCC compiled code (using the GCC runtime library) unless it is compiled using an "eligible compilation process", i.e. no GPL-incompatible software in the middle:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#142

Post by saurik »

In case anyone doesn't realize this: the ARM64 LLVM backend used by Apple in Xcode 5 to target, for example, the iPhone 5S, is currently not open source. There is a vague promise that it will be merged, but the time frame described was itself long, many months have already passed, and it doesn't really seem like much progress has been made since (although of course things could be happening internally at Apple).

(In fact, none of the code actually backing Xcode 5 or iOS 7, even LGPL code such as WebCore/JavaScriptCore, has yet to be released; but, in the case of the ARM64 backend, there was a specific discussion about it on the mailing list, and in fact some iOS-specific ARM64 patches to LLVM languished seemingly due to the idea that "well, some day the ARM64 stuff will be merged from Apple", so it is already having "chilling effects".)

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#143

Post by mhurron »

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.

Given that software is a tool, I would say it is more important that it work.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#144

Post by davexunit »

aurelius wrote: post #90

"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." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE…

NVIDIA benefits from LLVM at the expense of user freedom. That is not benefiting everyone. You, like many others, value convenience over freedom. The Dead Kennedys have an album entitled "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death". That title reminds me of the dominant mentality in the software industry.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#145

Post by drcube »

fleitz wrote: post #138
jamesaguilar wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's fucking great, my uncle bob thinks it is too, but we're talking about RMS not the FSF.

Do you even know who Richard Stallman is?

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#146

Post by cwzwarich »

craigching wrote: post #94
surrealize wrote: post #44

This message conflates two issues in an unfortunate way. One issue is the licensing of GCC, the other issue is the architecture of GCC (how modular it is). No one is arguing that GCC should change licenses. But he seems to think that making GCC more modular would somehow make it less free: > If GCC were to change from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal of freedom…

I've seen the argument made that somehow RMS and the gcc developers are against making gcc more modular. Where is everyone getting that idea, because that's not what I'm reading. Indeed, this quote from David Edelsohn in response to ESR seems to indicate they are interested in making the gcc more modular: >GCC is working toward re-factoring its code base toward a more compositional approach for "toolification". One c…

"Anything that makes it easier to use GCC back ends without GCC front ends--or simply brings GCC a big step closer to a form that would make such usage easy--would endanger our leverage for causing new front ends to be free.

Because of this, the GNU Project will in all probability not install such changes, should they be available. This statement reflects a firm conclusion based on a decade of thought."

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-01/msg00572.html

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#147

Post by gillianseed »

lmkg wrote: post #70
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 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…

>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.

You can create proprietary software _with_ GCC just fine, and he has never proposed any measures with which to impose any restrictions on the final output binaries you create with GCC so I don't really follow your reasoning.

The 'problem' with LLVM from his view is that it is easy to incorporate into proprietary software, as well as easy to use in conjunction with proprietary software (through plugins for instance), which means that there is potentially much less incentive to contribute your code back when it's easy to maintain it in proprietary form, which then leads to less 'free' software.

His cynicism has a tendency to come true, so it will be interesting to see if LLVM open source development will continue to flourish or if we will see a slow but steady transition of 'real improvements' happening in proprietary plugins or forked versions rather than contributed back to the open source project.

In some ways we might be seeing it already, last time I heard (which was in september IIRC), Apple had not contributed their A7 support to the open source versions of Clang/LLVM, and are instead keeping it proprietary and only available on the Clang/LLVM versions they ship with XCode on their OSX platform.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#148

Post by e12e »

aurelius wrote: post #90

"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." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE…

> For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products.

Counterpoint: Say I'm writing a new OS, and want to use the hardware I bought. How do I port the CUDA compiler? Porting GCC (or LLVM) should be pretty easy -- but that doesn't help me, because I can't use my software on my hardware.

This is what RMS has a problem with. You argue that if they had to contribute their changes back, we would all have been worse off. I'm not so sure. I think it's more: Nvidia could get lots of code for free and made more money, than if they had to write that code themselves. Great for Nvidia, yes -- but it's a bit of a tautology: If I give you something for free, and you can turn around and make money off it -- that is good for you. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's a lot better for me.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#149

Post by shawkinaw »

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…

Interesting that allowing you to do whatever you want with a piece of software (e.g. selling non-free derivatives) is considered restricting freedom.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#150

Post by tptacek »

quenlinlom wrote: post #134
jjoonathan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 copyl…

The problem with RMS is that he always assumes people to agree with his way of thinking. His uncompromising tone is also a big problem. I know, programmers are supposed to be emotionless meritocratic robots, but this Old Boys Know Best attitude is precisely why RMS and GCC is losing user share so quickly these days: the extremist meritocracy of programming culture is actually highly male-centric, and it simply scares…

This isn't a problem with RMS. It's a fact of RMS, and such a well known fact that it practically defines him. People working on FSF projects tend to understand that.

If you actually read what RMS just wrote, or, for that matter, anything RMS has written in the last decade on similar subjects, it's clear that "losing user share" isn't a meaningful metric to the FSF. If you lose user share by strengthening non-free software, then there was no point to the FSF to begin with.

By starting your comment with "the problem with RMS", you might as well be pointing out "the problem with free software". Which, fair enough, but it's not like people didn't realize that non-free software could edge out free software on functionality or user-friendliness.

Post reply on HN