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

221–230 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#221

Post by dllthomas »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #169
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 have to agree. I love free; what doesn't feel "free" to me is the GPL, since I can't use just about anything GPL in my job. My job involves creating non-free software. Given the GPL's goals, it's not a surprise at all that I can't use it. But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. I understand it's in pursuance of a "greater g…

"I can't use just about anything GPL in my job."

"I make builds using gcc daily and gnu make"

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#222

Post by sepeth »

BlackDeath3 wrote: post #178
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.

>freedom is more important than to have good softwares Yes, I agree, freedom to have the essentials for human survival is a lot more important than having instant access to the latest BF4 patch. Care to provide a bit of qualification and relevance to your broad, context-free, ill-defined statement?

You can find the context by accessing the outer scope (parent comment(s)), you will also need to read the email.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#223

Post by smithzvk »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #169
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 have to agree. I love free; what doesn't feel "free" to me is the GPL, since I can't use just about anything GPL in my job. My job involves creating non-free software. Given the GPL's goals, it's not a surprise at all that I can't use it. But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. I understand it's in pursuance of a "greater g…

> But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software.

It is ironic in a way, but it is only a valid criticism if you consider that you should have the freedom to restrict other peoples freedoms. This is generally considered to be immoral in modern society.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#224

Post by joelangeway »

Tloewald wrote: post #176
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…

I find it telling that RMS explicitly has a problem with LLVM because it helps private companies "as well as us" instead of only helping us. It's literally zero-sum for him. He doesn't want companies to benefit in any way from open source. I think there's a big problem with copyright and software -- the goal of copyright is to provide public goods, but the public goods that copyright protects is the source code, not…

> It's literally zero-sum for him.

Well it is. There are a finite number of consumers of C++ compilers. He is competing for the attention of potential free software advocates.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#225

Post by chimeracoder »

asdasf wrote: post #15
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…

>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. Many do. Any many of them realize they didn't actually want the GPL, they just picked the license they had heard of the most. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion of gcc being limited technically because the…

> Developers are users.

Developers are users, but so are non-developers.

The question of whether developers should be able to restrict freedom of non-developers is the question of whether some users should be able to restrict the freedom of other users. This is an ethical (subjective) question.

Put another way, should landowners be allowed the freedom of having serfs or indentured servants? Not allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of some people (the freedom to own serfs). But allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of other people (the freedom to be... well, free human beings).

As a society, we believe restricting the freedom to be human beings is ethically abhorrent, so we have no qualms (anymore) about restricting people's freedom to own serfs.

Maybe you see non-free software as ethically abhorrent, the way slavery is, maybe you don't. But that is the axiom that the free software movement (and the GPL) is based on - to understand free software, you have to understand that principle, even if you disagree with it.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#226

Post by Sanddancer »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #107
eliteraspberrie wrote: post #10

I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later. I don't use the GPL because I cannot honestly say that I understand it entirely. I understand copyleft, but the document is written for lawyers and I am not one. I can't expect users to read it either, much less understand it. I use the BSD licenses because they are simple and clear. If I ever had to defend my intellectu…

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html it isn't that bad to get through. There are also more than enough analysis of it on the web from reputable sources (I'm looking for good links...). If you understand copyleft, then you know what you're giving up by not using a copyleft, license. Do you not care about what you gain from the copyleft or don't want what you gain?

I care about what I lose because of copylefting software. I want software to suck less, and if that occasionally means letting someone be a free-rider on my stuff, let it be. At the same time, the existence of the GPL doesn't preclude people from free-riding either. Look at the embedded toolchains that are little more than GCC with a tiny proprietary wrapper, or the many many companies that use GPLed code, and have internal patches that never see light outside of the company. Restrictive licenses like the GPL are not all sunshine and roses.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#227

Post by dllthomas »

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 .

Your freedom ends where it conflicts with the freedoms of others. At that point, clearly something needs curtailing and the question is what/how. The GPL is one resolution.

My freedom to swing my fist stops at the tip of your nose; my freedom to modify legalese surrounding GPL software stops when it would deprive others of their "four essential freedoms" (in the words of the FSF).

0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.

If you don't believe that these are important and should be respected, then you shouldn't be licensing things under the GPL. If you believe these are more important than the restriction imposed, then releasing under a permissive license is not itself "restricting freedom", but all it is doing (compared to the GPL) is enabling "restricting freedom". When the only thing a change does is make a bad thing possible, it's still better not to make that change.

I find it somewhat interesting we have no viral license that protects freedom 0 and 1 in derivative works but allows adding additional restrictions that conflict with 2 and 3 (or don't, which would make it GPL compatible...).

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#228

Post by chimeracoder »

eliteraspberrie wrote: post #10

I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later. I don't use the GPL because I cannot honestly say that I understand it entirely. I understand copyleft, but the document is written for lawyers and I am not one. I can't expect users to read it either, much less understand it. I use the BSD licenses because they are simple and clear. If I ever had to defend my intellectu…

> If I ever had to defend my intellectual property, I could do so myself, and the case would be over quick. That is more important to me, as a developer without access to lawyers, than ideological battles.

The case would be over quickly, but you may not be happy with the result.

If you are not well-trained in copyright law (specifically as it applies to software), you are not going to be able to enforce the BSD license any better than you will be able to enforce the GPL, without a lawyer. There are just so many other ways that a well-funded legal team can give you the run-around.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#229

Post by dllthomas »

Tloewald wrote: post #176
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…

I find it telling that RMS explicitly has a problem with LLVM because it helps private companies "as well as us" instead of only helping us. It's literally zero-sum for him. He doesn't want companies to benefit in any way from open source. I think there's a big problem with copyright and software -- the goal of copyright is to provide public goods, but the public goods that copyright protects is the source code, not…

You're conflating "companies" and "creators of proprietary software". There is substantial overlap, but the "other" that RMS opposes is the latter.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#230

Post by oakwhiz »

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.

That depends on the situation. There are certainly some pieces of software for which I feel that it is more important that it merely functions well at some task, and closed-source software is acceptable for that purpose. There are other situations where closed-source software makes me uncomfortable because I do not have certain guarantees about its security, reliability, or flexibility. I would say that the majority of situations are better served by open-source software, but not everybody feels that way.
Post reply on HN