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

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#301

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 4:29 PM UTC

gress wrote: post #264

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'd say more than 99.9% of them are 'using' GCC or clang, rather than 'developing' it, even if they are 'developers' using it to develop other software. So they're probably quite happy to have their rights as users privileged over their rights as developers in this particular case, particularly if it stops other developers from ruining things for them as users.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#302

Post by nzp » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 4:53 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #228

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 licen…

The whole point of BSD-style licenses is that there is hardly anything to enforce at all. With such a license you are simply stating that you allow the receiver to do whatever they want with it. This statement is just necessary because by default under the copyright law no rights (with some exceptions such as fair use etc., it depends on jurisdiction) are granted to entities receiving the work.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#303

Post by gress » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 5:11 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #284

gress wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is about protecting the rights of people rich enough to hire developers to work on bespoke projects that cannot be distributed as proprietary. I.e. Large corporations.

I am currently paying for some bespoke software development (split with two other individuals).

Is it under the GPL?

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#304

Post by gress » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 5:29 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #301

gress wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd say more than 99.9% of them are 'using' GCC or clang, rather than 'developing' it, even if they are 'developers' using it to develop other software. So they're probably quite happy to have their rights as users privileged over their rights as developers in this particular case, particularly if it stops other developers from ruining things for them as users.

This case is about the GPL ruining things for these users - not stopping them from being ruined, which is why Clang is rising in popularity.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#305

Post by sbuk » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 5:54 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #270

sbuk wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously?

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

I know. The question was rhetorical. I really shouldn't have to explain that.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#306

Post by teddyh » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 6:18 PM UTC

gress wrote: post #240

teddyh wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, you ought, logically, to be against all forms of copyright and patents.

I am against patents, and I agree that by implication copyright is harmful too. I tend not to be an absolutist so am still considering my position on it, but I can't really defend copyright strongly.

Well then; Should copyright cease to exist, the GPL would have no power and would no longer have any meaning. But while copyright does exist, the GPL will continue to work against the imbalance of power copyright (and, lately, patents) create.

If I may make a parable: Don’t hate the rebels for being violent; hate the oppressive state against which they rebel.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#307

Post by aurelius » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 7:00 PM UTC

davexunit wrote: post #144

aurelius wrote: post #90

"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE…

NVIDIA benefits from LLVM at the expense of user freedom. That is not benefiting everyone. You, like many others, value convenience over freedom. The Dead Kennedys have an album entitled "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death". That title reminds me of the dominant mentality in the software industry.

You seem to have forgotten that computers exist solely for the purposes of making man's life more convenient. Any ideas of software freedom that get in the way of this convenience are bad for mankind. Therefore Stallman's ideas about software freedom are bad for mankind. LLVM is more popular because it is more convenient. It is more convenient because it is truly free, and not enslaved by a license that exalts the "rights of software" above all else.

The idea of imbuing an inanimate thing with rights that are restrictive to animate beings is philosophically offensive to any right-thinking individual.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#308

Post by aurelius » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 7:02 PM UTC

randallu wrote: post #220

aurelius wrote: post #90

"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE…

It's interesting that the advantage for LLVM is that it was used to create a compiler for a processor with a secret and proprietary instruction set. If NVIDIA had to use GCC (surely they'd have just done their own instead, but for the sake of argument) then we'd all get to learn more about their architecture and maybe make compilers for different languages that natively target their processors...

What makes you think you have the right to learn about a proprietary architecture? Just because you bought the product doesn't mean NVIDIA has to tell you how it works.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#309

Post by fleitz » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 7:16 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #256

fleitz wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So clang according to RMS is free as in freedom software that harms the free software movement because their unconcerned about freedom, rather than open source software that harms the free software movement because they are unconcerned about freedom.

I get you now, makes perfect sense.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#310

Post by blacksmythe » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 7:22 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #64

I am surprised he isn't railing against all the folks selling GCC for extortionate rates to the embedded community. IAR, KEIL, others, $3,000 - $6,000 for a "development tool" which is 99% gcc and 1% some startup code the vendor wrote. Nice margins I guess.

  >> 99% gcc and 1% some startup code

Modifying and selling gcc to compile code optimized for lots of different underpowered processors sounds like an unattractive business model to me, given (I assume) a relatively small number of customers for any given microprocessor type and (again I assume) a significant amount of work for each microprocessor type supported.