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

291–300 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#291

Post by dllthomas »

eurleif wrote: post #286
dllthomas wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing you can do with non-GPL software that you cannot do with GPL software that does not involve distributing code with more restrictions.

You can't distribute someone else's GPL code in a way that allows other people to redistribure it with more restrictions. That's a big deal if you want to mix GPL code with your BSD-licensed project, even if you don't personally touch any non-free software.

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 said, not all restrictions are equally problematic - an obvious brokenness would be wanting to mix original-BSD-license code and GPL code; both licenses purportedly free (says even the FSF), but the 4 clause BSD code adds a restriction regarding advertising materials mentioning UC Berkeley.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#292

Post by dllthomas »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #267
dllthomas wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

My point is that you do use a relatively large amount of GPL code (the gcc codebase is huge) and there are doubtless more GPL programs you can perfectly well use during development and simply choose not to. "I can't use just about anything GPL in my job" is a mischaracterization. What you can't do is incorporate GPL code in non-GPL code you are distributing (which quite probably does include most of the work you do for your job, although not necessarily testing frameworks, &c).

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#293

Post by nzp »

geocar wrote: post #185
stonemetal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What would you have had him do differently? The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. I would have him not view people on the other side as advisaries. Sure FreeBSD and Konquer didn't gain much from Apple deciding to use their code, but they also didn't lose anything either. It isn't a zero sum game.

> 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 to release improvements (let's imply Apple didn't like this), what reason would they possibly have to choose KHTML? "Oh, look, there are these other engines which are better than KHTML but unfortunately their licenses don't force us to release our work, so no, we choose GPL."

In reality KHTML was a much better code base than other options, and Apple didn't really care that much about the license.

Let me tie in this comment with the whole thing about GPL vs. non-copyleft free software drama in general, and why I think GPL has become harmful: what you said I think illustrates a kind of thinking mode that the idea, the practical working principle, behind GPL breeds. The idea is to use force and coercion to make entities do what you want them to do. That road naturally leads to a mindset where every behavior is seen as necessarily motivated by coercion. And that leads one to normalize and accept coercion as an acceptable, even necessary, mode of social relations. I see this mode of thinking a lot with strong advocates of GPL. It's always in terms of someone being forced to do something good, and if they aren't being forced no good shall come out. This is a horrible, horrible way to look at the world. If we take Apple as an example, they open-sourced a lot of stuff they had no legal reason to release, some of those things very non trivial.

I have to point out that I'm writing all of this as someone who respects RMS and FSF's cause a great deal, I even use the term free software rather than open source (in my native language, fortunately, there's no confusion about "free", free as in freedom and free as in bear are not homonyms). However, I do not think GPL and strong copyleft licenses are an acceptable, or even a good way, to accomplish freedom in this domain of life. GPL is maybe a great tool to destroy proprietary software (well, almost, but not quite), but a horrible way to accomplish software freedoms in general.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#294

Post by _delirium »

stonemetal wrote: post #155
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…

>What would you have had him do differently? The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. I would have him not view people on the other side as advisaries. Sure FreeBSD and Konquer didn't gain much from Apple deciding to use their code, but they also didn't lose anything either. It isn't a zero sum game.

> I would have him not view people on the other side as advisaries.

A big part of the impetus for the FSF was an early instance where they were adversaries, at least in RMS's eyes. The MIT AI lab had an open culture of sharing code, which was "taken proprietary" by several spinoffs in the early 1980s, who hired away some of the AI-lab hackers and stopped sharing improvements with the remaining not-hired-away AI-lab hackers. Stallman saw that as a bit of a betrayal of trust, not to mention damaging to the open development of software, and users' ability to have the source to & freedom to modify their software.

His solution was twofold: 1) start his own competing spinoff (the Free Software Foundation) which would employ its own set of hackers to develop the "public", non-proprietary codebase; and 2) license their contributions under a new license, the GPL, which would ensure that extensions to their code couldn't be taken proprietary.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#295

Post by nzp »

geocar wrote: post #287
lstamour wrote: post #280

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, though the simplicity was something it lost in rewrites. WebKit, regardless of original License, was likely going to be open source either way just as Darwin was even without the License requirement. The point here is that non-free uses inside OS X…

> 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 kind of force or coercion, thank you very much.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#296

Post by dllthomas »

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…

But there can be greater benefits of defection, particularly in the short term.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#297

Post by nzp »

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?

Actually, he does. I remember when he went to an OpenBSD list a few years ago[1] and insisted they take out ports for non-free software out of the ports tree.

[1]: Too lazy to find the link.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#298

Post by nzp »

Touche wrote: post #261
sdegutis wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My feeling is that they're not more zealous (to be honest, I don't think there's anything wrong with being zealous when you're fighting for a good cause) but rather dilettantes who don't actually understand what FSF is about, or what the various licenses precisely mean. They just find the general aesthetics and rhetoric of FSF and RMS appealing and try to emulate cargo-cult style.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#299

Post by ZeroGravitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #241
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There a bunch of facts that contradict this, e.g. the exstance of the LGPL, RMS supporting BSD licencing of Xiph codecs etc. His approach is a lot more nuanced and tactical than it is often portrayed.

> There a bunch of facts that contradict this, e.g. the exstance of the LGPL, RMS supporting BSD licencing of Xiph codecs etc. Those don't actually contradict it in any way that I can see. > His approach is a lot more nuanced and tactical than it is often portrayed. Sure. That doesn't mean that the long-term goal isn't as I've described it (and, in fact, RMS has pretty explicitly said it is for him, though that may o…

The LGPL is explicitly designed to allow non-free software to be created that uses the code under that licence, and it was created by RMS.

He supported BSD licences for Xiph codecs because he recognised the impact of network effects,

You claim that both these thing are considered "evil", "unconscionable" and "categorically wrong" by him regardless of whatever benefits they create. Clearly RMS disagrees, and is happy to use them as tools to achieve his long term goals in specific circumstances.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#300

Post by nzp »

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…

It's really not complicated at all. RMS is simply a social-democrat. He is the shining example of what social-democracy is really in practice. His position is not utopian at all, it's a very limited and specific, socially liberal, demand: it's unjust to have people be unable to do whatever they want with the things they own, not to mention having the things they own controlling them. Proprietary software does tend to limit and control its users, therefore we need to abolish proprietary software. It has nothing to do with hindering capitalism or anything like that.

I can see people in the USA having problems to properly frame his position due to the ideological burden of equating any kind of a demand for sharing and cooperation with communism or socialism, regardless if the demand actually has anything to do with left wing political motivations.

Post reply on HN