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

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#151

Post by fleitz » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:27 PM UTC

drcube wrote: post #127

fleitz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ac…

There's a couple claims here:

1) Free means freedom in the copyleft sense.

2) Free means freedom in the open source sense.

3) Free means free as in beer.

In the article RMS appears to be using definition 1, elsewhere on the FSF site the FSF uses 2.

"In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the users of computing. The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal."

It's very clear that "free software" in the article is definition 1, since MIT/BSD falls clearly in category 2, LLVM/Clang is NOT free software according to the definitions used in the article, and therefore the position RMS is advocating in the article is that LLVM/Clang is not free software, but rather open source software.

Yes to everyone else in the world, including the FSF, Clang/LLVM is free software but according to RMS it is not.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#152

Post by mempko » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:27 PM UTC

yalogin wrote: post #86

I respect RMS a lot and really appreciate his steadfast promotion of free software (copyleft). But isn't it becoming a moot point in this day and age? A decade or two ago the software tools were important and since all of them were proprietary GNU was sorely needed and all the work done by people on GNU and Linux really was needed. But now the concept of open source and free software (not copy left but just free) has…

And RMS recognizes this. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#153

Post by bowlofpetunias » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:28 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…

What you call ideology I like to think of as taking the long view. The primary goal is to create software that will remain useful.

Time and time RMS has been proven right about the detrimental consequences of non-free software, but usually over the span of many, many years.

Non-free software has a habit of working well and doing what you want right until it doesn't and then royally screws you.

You can only be pragmatic about it (most of us are) if you are aware of the risks and consequences. Otherwise you're just being ignorant.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#154

Post by mempko » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:28 PM UTC

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…

I am glad you don't care. I do care. good argument. cats are over there ----->

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#155

Post by stonemetal » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:29 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #115

hacknat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 copyl…

>What would you have had him do differently?

The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code.

I would have him not view people on the other side as advisaries. Sure FreeBSD and Konquer didn't gain much from Apple deciding to use their code, but they also didn't lose anything either. It isn't a zero sum game.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#156

Post by fleitz » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:29 PM UTC

drcube wrote: post #145

fleitz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I just imagined that despite his polemic nature there were still other people who could put up with dealing with him who also were part of the FSF and therefore the FSF could hold positions divergent from those of RMS.

If the FSF consists solely of the opinions of RMS then I retract the previous statement and would say that the page mentioned expresses an opinion inconsistent with what is expressed in the email.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#157

Post by davexunit » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:31 PM UTC

crazy1van wrote: post #91

How does Stallman fund his life? I'm assuming he gets paid a salary. So he's ok with doing work for money himself, but not ok with other people monetizing their efforts in a slightly different way. I don't understand.

He does not get paid a salary, afaik. The FSF certainly does not pay him. In the old days he made his money by selling copies of Emacs and documentation and such. These days, he travels the world and speaks at various institutions. Monetization is not at odds with free software, btw. In fact, software that cannot be used commercially is nonfree! There is no moral objection to a programmer being paid to write software. The objection is to software licensing that denies user of that software the "four freedoms".

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#158

Post by guscost » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:32 PM UTC

The problem I have with the copyleft movement is an impression that they want developers to have less freedom than end users. As an end user I get free access to all GPL source code, but as a developer I can only use that source code to make new software if I follow certain rules.

It's as if there was a "free recipes" movement arguing that since their method for cultivating cayenne peppers was under GPL, KFC should be forced to tell everyone how to make their chicken.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#159

Post by jnbiche » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:33 PM UTC

What many GPL supporters fail to understand is that GPL doesn't hinder or hurt big companies at all. If they find a GPL-licensed piece of software they need, they just pay their developers to make another proprietary one. With the exception of huge projects like Linux, it's a rounding error for them.

No, the only ones the GPL hinders are small-time freelance devs and small devs shops who are trying to make a living. Often, these are the same devs who are leading open source projects of their own. When they need to create a proprietary project to pay the bills, a GPL-licensed library is usually the end of the road for their project, since they won't have the manpower to replicate it on their own.

Aside from these issues, do we really care that we can't access the source of Subtle Text? As long as it's got a good API, I don't see the big problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of open source, and have realized numerous modest projects under the MIT license. But proprietary projects, even ones that use my MIT code, don't offend me to the core like they do RMS and co-ideologues (incidentally, I feel like I'd really get along with RMS as a person, even if he might shun me).

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#160

Post by mortdeus » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:34 PM UTC

This argument is moot. Proprietary software doesn't have to live at a dissonance from FLOSS software, nor does free software protect the integrity of freedom. So there are proprietary compilers being derived from LLVM... How does that prevent somebody from throwing out the proprietary compiler on principle in order to support the open source alternative?

Forcing somebody to respect your ideological beliefs regarding freedom is just as much a wolf in sheep's clothing as a notion to force somebody to bend to your will regarding how the software you use may function by design.

There is a place for open source licenses and there is a place for free software licenses. To say free software protects the interest of technological innovation better than open source software can is a position based on a foundation of ignorant dissension.

Science has little use for politics playing a major role as a core value. 99% of all people Using software could care less about the freedom of software, and the 1% who do care are split between the engineers who value the ideals of innovation by collaboration, and the executives who understand that too much freedom means everybody gets stuck with a bounced cheque.