Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 9:08 PM UTC

shawkinaw wrote: post #149

pmr_ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Post by nullc » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 9:10 PM UTC

forgottenpass wrote: post #186

stonemetal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I would have him not view people on the other side as advisaries. "Competitor that through their marketplace success makes us further from our social goal" doesn't have all the same connotations as "advisory", but given their goals I don't see how it's not an accurate descriptor. No, the software marketplace isn't a zero sum game. I'm not even a believer in free software, but it still frustrates me to no end when som…

Post by Avshalom » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

geocar wrote: post #185

stonemetal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> Sure FreeBSD and Konquer didn't gain much from Apple deciding to use their code, but they also didn't lose anything either. I disagree. In fact, I think the GPL probably saved the World Wide Web. That Konquerer was GPL was the single advantage it had over anything else. It used to be a buggier, and slower, and generally worse web browser, but every time someone made an improvement, the GPL made those improvements F…

Post by Avshalom » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 9:16 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #158

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 b…

Post by gillianseed » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 9:20 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #184

gillianseed wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Linus stands directly against this sort of idea Linus and the rest of the Linux kernel developers make it intentionally hard to keep out-of-tree modules working against the kernel for the same reason that GCC does, which is to have the code included into the main project where it will benefit all end users instead of having proprietary/out-of-tree modules/plugins which are available to a select audience. I can't see…

That's a different problem - namely that they don't want to tie Linux to having a stable ABI. The side-effect is that it makes it difficult to maintain out-of-tree modules, because people don't fix things as they edit the kernel (if it builds, it builds etc.)