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

261–270 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#261

Post by Touche »

sdegutis wrote: post #168
quenlinlom wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go back to Reddit. Hacker News isn't a place where you post memetic responses for peer acceptance.

I interpreted what he and I both said as a statement of the pointlessness of this ongoing debate that everyone knows has no end. That seems like an on-topic statement to make on HN, especially if it deters others from jumping on that perpetual bandwagon.

It's not really a debate, the FSF, which was founded by Richard Stallman considers BSD (and a lot of other permissive licenses) to be Free Software. Only people who are even more of a zealot than Richard Stallman disagree.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#262

Post by [deleted] »

com2kid wrote: post #212
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).

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). This restricts users freedom, that is his point. GPL is not about the rights of the programmer, it is about the rights of the end user.

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#263

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

gress wrote: post #260
undershirt wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Exactly! Especially for programming tools like GCC or Clang, the end user is by definition a developer.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#264

Post by gress »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #191
shawkinaw wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's a common misconception amongst software developers, but in fact its not your freedom that's being defended, its the users of software. So let's rephrase that: Interesting that preventing users from doing something with a bit of software (e.g. selling non-free derivatives) is considered restricting freedom. Kind of self evident when stated from the users point of view really.

What 'users' of clang and gcc are not developers?

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#265

Post by gress »

com2kid wrote: post #212
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).

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). This restricts users freedom, that is his point. GPL is not about the rights of the programmer, it is about the rights of the end user.

The end users of gcc and clang are programmers.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#266

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

nly wrote: post #247
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…

> My job involves creating non-free software. > But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. 1. The GPL isn't restricting your freedom, your employer is. You are working under contract terms and policy selected by your employer. Your preferences aren't relevant. 2. The GPL isn't restricting your employer from using the software, j…

>The GPL isn't restricting your freedom, your employer is.

I'm freelance. I write games and apps, and I do contract work. I can't use GPL software (except for GCC, which I already noted) in creating any of the products that I create because I need to make money.

Not everyone can make a Free product so popular that they can make money being paid to maintain it. I think there are probably fewer than twenty examples of such products that are actually monetarily successful for their creators, and I've read multiple stories of developers who had crazy-popular free products and who were unable to make ends meet.

Not sure how you expect "my employer" to make money giving products away for free either.

It's not "my employer" but the market realities that restrict my freedom with respect to GPL. I can't even publish an iOS app with GPL code; blame Apple all you want, but iOS and Android are gold mines of contract opportunities. You're telling me I should stand on some feel-good principle and ignore the $125-150/hour contract offers that keep pouring in and instead take a job making free software for 1/3 that amount? If I can even find such a position?

Sorry, I'm taking the money. You can make the sacrifice if you want.

>Microsoft will charge you for the privilege of using their inferior compiler

Express editions have been free for years. And that includes the entire VS suite as well as command line compilers.

>"Oh boy! B is giving me more stuff for free than A was, I'm going to go shit on A and make demands!"

Umm...hello? That's entirely unlike what I said.

What I said was: Lots of Free stuff sucks enough I'm willing to pay for closed alternatives. That's two kinds of payment: Paying with dollars, and paying with the restrictions in my freedom. And I'm saying the transaction is worth it. I'm not making any demands. I am saying that a lot of free software sucks compared to the alternatives, but that's just the truth.

In the case of Clang, it's awesome to me that it's BSD-free. If I need it in a piece of software, I can use it without question. Might it end up in a proprietary package? Yes. But if that user makes changes they'll likely send them back upstream so that other users of Clang will benefit.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#267

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

dllthomas wrote: post #221
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…

"I can't use just about anything GPL in my job." "I make builds using gcc daily and gnu make"

Yes. So? Your point is?

I called it out as the only thing I do use.

And I may transition to Clang from gcc if a build problem I encountered with an older Clang version is fixed. That leaves gnu make.

And make sucks for many, many reasons, but that's not Gnu's fault. It's just that all the other building solutions suck more.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#268

Post by dllthomas »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #209
Tloewald wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> He doesn't want companies to benefit in any way from open source. He never said that, and you're really failing to see his point. He doesn't want GCC to be broken up into tiny bits and have each of those pieces replaced by non-copyleft equivalents. Because he doesn't want the hard work of the GCC community to be used as a scaffold for creating a non-free replacement. He is totally happy for companies to use and ben…

I'm not sure if Klang is another software project, but if you meant Clang it is not non-free. Because it is not copyleft, its code can be used in things which are non-free. There is a distinction.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#269

Post by eliteraspberrie »

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 think most people outside of technology wouldn't easily understand copyleft, and a day might come when I depend on those people. So it's a trade-off between my rights, users' rights, and my peace of mind. The rights I give up, by choosing BSD rather than GPL, I don't think I could enforce without losing my peace of mind.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#270

Post by dllthomas »

sbuk wrote: post #166
quenlinlom wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go back to Reddit. Hacker News isn't a place where you post memetic responses for peer acceptance.

Seriously?

I assume not. "Go back to reddit" is a memetic response presumably posted for peer acceptance.
Post reply on HN