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

251–260 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#251

Post by fleitz »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #217
fleitz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally speaking, the FSF and RMS agree. Nothing in the thread is inconsistent with this. RMS observes that the NCSA isn't copyleft, which is true, but that's a different dimension than free versus non-free.

But not different than free vs. open source.

"The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal."

Clang wants to make a great compiler, they chose the NCSA license to facilitate that, according to the article makes it open source software and not 'free software' rather than 'unfree software'

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#252

Post by tonyarkles »

mwcampbell wrote: post #211
rimantas wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really very funny to read your and similar comments and to think why clang was created.

I don't get it. Why do you think clang was created, and what does that have to do wwith the GP?

To me, clang was created because gcc was working great for a lot of things, but wasn't working well for what some people wanted to do (and couldn't officially be made to do it without forking)

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#253

Post by gress »

3am wrote: post #92
pantalaimon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a social movement that cares about what is the epitome of a first-world-problem.

Look, I don't carry water for FSF or Stallman, but it's easy to make that statement in the context in the world they helped create. You can't imagine how much OS licensing used to cost, which would definitely be an impediment to non first-world populations (from an infrastructure, education, and economic point of view to the extent they can be separated) edit: to expound, the world they helped create is one where the…

It's not obvious at all that the GPL had anything to do with causing OS licensing fees to collapse. There are numerous high quality open source operating systems that are not based on the GPL, and the general reduction in price of commercial OSs is a function if competition between corporations.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#254

Post by gress »

smrtinsert wrote: post #106
codex wrote: post #16

Stallman consistently ignores the free market when writing about software freedom. What users want, the free market will provide. If they want customizable software, the market will give it to them. If they only want feature X, the market will give it to them. If they want interop., they will get that too. If they don't care about modifying the source code, well, people won't offer it. The GPL is not what allows user…

The free market, what a great idea. Producing great things such as skyrocketing health care costs, the mortgage crisis and others...

Those problems are the result of heavy government restriction and bailouts - the exact opposite of a free market.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#255

Post by burntsushi »

Someone wrote: post #233
burntsushi wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What desperate cases?

The fight for users to be able to change their software, for example to add a 'print is done' feedback message to the software driving the print queue ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Background:_ev... )

I'm not convinced we're in desperate times. There are several significant open source communities built on copyfree licenses that flourish.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#256

Post by jamesaguilar »

fleitz wrote: post #251
jamesaguilar wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, the FSF and RMS agree. Nothing in the thread is inconsistent with this. RMS observes that the NCSA isn't copyleft, which is true, but that's a different dimension than free versus non-free.

But not different than free vs. open source. "The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal." Clang wants to make a great compiler, they chose the NCSA license to facilitate that, according to the article makes it open source software and not 'free software' rather than 'unfree software'

Values and the question of whether a given license meets RMS's technical requirements for being free software are also two different metrics. He even explains that in this email. OSS puts an emphasis on the practical benefit of open source, whereas free software emphasizes the principle. And RMS never calls Clang nonfree in this email, he talks about nonfree derivatives of Clang.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#257

Post by chongli »

Tloewald wrote: post #242
chongli wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, rms doesn't really care about source code. He cares about user freedom. He wants every user of software to have the same freedom to experiment, modify and redistribute that its original developers had. Placing source code in escrow would not accomplish any of these goals.

It would accomplish all of these goals in the long run .

I doubt that. Look at all the proprietary software that's abandoned right now. Are you telling me that if all that old source code was suddenly released it'd be every bit as good as software which has been free for the same number of years? Of course not.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#258

Post by _jwo_ »

fleitz wrote: post #249
drcube wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confounding issues here. RMS is in the position of a critic of the US government, rightly claiming that, while your country is "free", it installs and supports dictatorships all over the world. It is possible to be unfree, and not support other dictatorships, like Cuba. It is possible to be both unfree, and support dictatorships, like the USSR. RMS's goal with GCC, is to be like the mythical free country that…

Except the the claim he is making is that free software is fundamentally different than open source. "The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal." Perhaps you could provide quotes where RMS in the article says that clang is 'free software'. According to RMS in the article clang is a major set back for free software. (because it's…

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

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

clang is "free software" according to his own definition. It is entirely possible for a specific free software program to be a setback to the goals of the free software movement. His position is that copyleft licenses (very often, and certainly in this specific case) advance the goal of freedom more effectively than non-copyleft licenses. The differing values in this case basically amounts to whether one considers it worth using a copyleft license to ensure that the software being used remains free, or whether one considers it a drawback that a copyleft license may prevent it being used in proprietary software.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#259

Post by gress »

slurry wrote: post #187
gress wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

RMS had a pretty testy interview with Z magazine a few years back. Was very emphatic that his vision of the future included businesses, and swatted down several attempts by the Z people, who wanted to abolish all businesses, to get him to reconsider. Not bringing this up to argue that RMS is correct or reasonable (here or elsewhere), but I just thought it was interesting. RMS may be an unrealistic utopian, but his un…

Property rights for everyone except software developers.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#260

Post by gress »

undershirt wrote: post #206
SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's confusing if you think about it in terms of developer freedom, which the GPL isn't written for. It's about a user's freedom to run, study, modify, and distribute software however they want. It's this seed of freedom that prevents software from controlling the users. That's what the GPL protects. So your objection to the GPL is essentially that it doesn't grant you the freedom to take away these user rights.

Isn't a user who modifies and distributes software otherwise known as a developer?
Post reply on HN