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

321–330 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#321

Post by dllthomas »

eurleif wrote: post #320
dllthomas wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, you can mix GPL code with your previously BSD-licensed project, and release the result under the GPL. However, I'll grant that that's strictly an exception there as I worded things. The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands. That s…

>The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands. That's true, but if I'm a person whose only goal in life is to maximize free software, I may still be rationally motivated to license my project BSD instead of GPL. A BSD-licensed project can…

One can certainly make that case, at which point it largely amounts to a factual question and I don't have the data to answer it.

"If they use my project, it makes my project's ecosystem stronger, which is good for free software."

Maybe. If they run with your code and build a proprietary fork with a few features on you, and users migrate over, your project's ecosystem may be weaker despite the code being used by more people, and it would be bad for free software. It's hard to say.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#322

Post by dllthomas »

sbuk wrote: post #305
dllthomas wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought it fun to spell it out.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#323

Post by mwcampbell »

aurelius wrote: post #307
davexunit wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "r…

Granted, the application of the adjective "free" to an inanimate thing like software is confusing. But the point of free software is to promote freedom for the users of the software. So it really is about freedom for animate beings after all.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#324

Post by chimeracoder »

nzp wrote: post #302
chimeracoder wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, yes, obviously it's "easier" to litigate when you give yourself less legal standing to file suit, but that's a rather meaningless comparison. By that logic CC0, is the easiest to litigate, because you've given up all your rights as the license holder. That only makes sense if you place literally zero value on the rights that the license provides. It's only relevant to compare how easily enforceable two licenses are when the rights they provide are comparable (e.g., GPL and MPL, or 3-clause BSD and MIT).

The whole point of choosing the GPL over BSD/MIT is choosing a copyleft license. If all you care about is ensuring that the recipient is legally granted the rights provided by the BSD/MIT license, then the question of how "easy" it is for the license holder to litigate isn't relevant.

OP's argument was that it would be too much mental effort to enforce the GPL, though that's not really an argument for not choosing the GPL, because simply holding the license doesn't mean he has to enforce it.

If OP actually doesn't want the copyleft provisions, then obviously he shouldn't choose the GPL. But if that's something that he does care about, there's not really any downside to selecting the GPL, and no upside to selecting a non-copyleft license.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#326

Post by geocar »

nzp wrote: post #295
geocar wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, in the Debug podcast, it was revealed that they were going to go with Mozilla's effort and all that held them back was that KHTML was so much simpler to explain Actually, that's completely irrelevant. The GPL ensured that Google could benefit from Apple's decision to use KHTML.

That's exactly relevant! Your premise is that (in this case Apple) objects to releasing things free, and the only thing that made them do it is GPL. GPL is simply not relevant here, no one cared. Apple in turn benefited from Google's improvements of Webkit, etc. People who make decisions in companies, and indeed people in general, are perfectly able to understand the enormous benefits of cooperation. No need for any…

> the only thing that made them do it is GPL

That's the only thing making them do it.

Whether there are other benefits to giving away source code is not relevant. What they might have done is not relevant. No one could ever say whether Apple and Google and Samsung would have gotten together and made a web browser in collaboration without the GPL.

The fact is that they did not do it without the GPL.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#327

Post by BjoernKW »

I think Stallman has very much lost sight of who his true 'adversaries' are. I consider myself a strong proponent of open source software but there are reasons - imagined or real - for not making everything open source or for using a permissive licence.

Not using a permissive licence for a software effectively bars most companies from using that software. In my opinion licences such as Affero GPL aren't free at all because they limit what you can do on your own machines. I've experienced this first hand with very useful libraries such as iText.

Sure, iText und many other AGPL-licensed libraries are available under an additional proprietary licence. However, this isn't very much about free software either but simply another sales argument: "You've got to publish the valuable source code of your application unless you pay us a lot of money. In that case: Screw free software!" Sounds a bit like blackmail to me.

I understand that the FSF is an ideological movement that's based on strong principles. Stubbornly insisting on these principles without considering pragmatic concerns does a disservice to free software adoption, though.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#328

Post by chii »

nzp wrote: post #293
geocar wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your argument, that GPL was KHTML's only advantage, doesn't make any sense because it then follows that Apple chose KHTML because they just love GPL and won't accept anything else despite KHTML's supposed technical inferiority. In other words, you're saying Apple chose KHTML because their only concern was apparently to get to be forced by GPL to release improvements. Because if KHTML was so inferior and forced them t…

relying on the goodwill of an entity will almost always get you nowhere. Apple (or any other major corporation) does what they do purely for profit - and of their decision to unilaterally release source code (without coersion from a license) is made based on the positive PR gains, on the fact that releasing software to commoditize the competition will help their own business, or for some other publically unknown reason.

It's always better to encode, into law, ethical behaviour we want, instead of hoping for it from people. Doubly so when the 'person' is a corporation.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#329

Post by microtherion »

skywhopper wrote: post #219
hacknat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? You shall know a tree by it's fruits. It wouldn't bother me one way or another whether LLVM was copyleft or not, the people who run it are more pleasant to work with. I think the biggest hurdle to people caring about copyleft is the sheer tonnage of disrespect people like RMS show to others. Nobody wants to work with a curmudgeon.

Does RMS go trolling on dev lists for permissively-licensed projects? The FSF has been around for decades with the same goal. ESR comes in and starts needling over the philosophy behind the GPL on dev lists. Who's showing disrespect to whom again?

> Does RMS go trolling on dev lists for permissively-licensed projects?

Are bears catholic?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.tcl/7JXGt-...

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#330

Post by dllthomas »

dllthomas wrote: post #319
gress wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it under the GPL?

AGPL, as it happens.

While the above is the case, I'd just like to note that it misses the thrust of the subthread - my point was that it can demonstrably be affordable for other than "large corporations", which is the case regardless of the license under which I am releasing it.
Post reply on HN