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

201–210 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#201

Post by nullc »

gress wrote: post #122
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.

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

RMS's free software work isn't against capitalism any more than anti-slavery people's work is against capitalism.

RMS has steadfast refused to even entertain anti-business terms in software licenses as something fitting for a free software license, except to the extent that the "business" involves taking the free software in question and making it non-free.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#202

Post by mhurron »

sparkie wrote: post #180
mhurron wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that software is a tool, I would say it is more important that it work.

Is it more important even if it allows somebody to remotely disable the breaks on your car while you're doing 50mph? Or perhaps disabling your camera while you're being assaulted by a police officer? What about the predator who's monitoring your children's activities and location because they downloaded a game? I picked some pretty harsh possibilities there that seem a little dystopian, but I wouldn't rule any of the…

Yes, software working for me is more important than the theoretical ability change or rewrite the software in some vague idea of source code freedom.

You are aware that all your attempted examples could simply be called 'not working' when evaluating the software.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#203

Post by teddyh »

gress wrote: post #135
sepeth wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe, it is broader than you think: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every…

I totally believe in cooperation and mutual aid. I believe it's critical for that to be based on trust and individual choice, or it is meaningless. This is why I don't like RMS's attempt to force it on us.

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

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#204

Post by geocar »

Avshalom wrote: post #195
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…

To be fair the Mozilla Public License is also copy-left it just uses a weaker (but also more clearly defined) barrier.

To be fair to whom?

People can and did extend Mozilla, and they can and did keep those changes non-free because the MPL allows for non-free linking and binary-only redistribution.

While the GPL does not.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#205

Post by tobiasu »

crazy1van wrote: post #91

How does Stallman fund his life? I'm assuming he gets paid a salary. So he's ok with doing work for money himself, but not ok with other people monetizing their efforts in a slightly different way. I don't understand.

Grants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Honors_and_awa...

It's said he has some serious cash in the bank. Given his eccentric but modest lifestyle, I doubt he'll ever have financial problems.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#206

Post by undershirt »

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…

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.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#207

Post by tzs »

zbowling wrote: post #189
tzs wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do believe Apple added the restrictions on having only non-GPL code [...] Apple allows GPL code in the App store. There are many GPL apps (both GPLv2 and GPLv3) in the store. If you are using GPL code that you do not own in your app, you do need to get a non-GPL license from the owners to allow Apple to distribute it, and so the code ends up dual licenses--special license for Apple, GPL for everyone else.

Well yah, if you have ownership, you can license it under all the terms you want to different people. Kind of moot.

It's not moot at all. Your statement, "I do believe Apple added the restrictions on having only non-GPL code", implied that all licenses on the code must be non-GPL.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#209

Post by erikpukinskis »

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…

> 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 benefit from GPL'ed software in all the ways the license permits. He is totally happy for companies to use and benefit from non-free open source software (like Klang) however they like.

He also has no problem with people forking GCC and splitting it up however they want to. He doesn't think that's a good use of resources, and he thinks it's harmful, but he has no interest in stopping them.

What is is not happy for, and what he is standing up against, is companies making changes to his branch of GCC. The GNU project is a group of people maintaining their versions of various Free Software. You can fork any of those projects and make different choices. But within the context of that project, amongst his collaborators he has opinions about what changes to make, and how best to further the goals of the project. And he thinks this change will be bad for the project.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#210

Post by davexunit »

codex wrote: post #170
davexunit wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESR, is that you? All you did was repeat "free market" a bunch of times. Congratulations.

Allow me to continue, then. Stallman's original problem was essentially, "I had a broken car once and I couldn't get the part I needed to repair it. That sucked, so all manufacturers should provide everyone with all the information needed make any replacement part." In today's world that problem really doesn't exist anymore. Software is a mass market product, and the software that is produced already conforms to what…

Your ignorance is baffling. I won't continue to humor it.
Post reply on HN