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.
Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
91–100 of 338 posts
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#92When 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…
It's also a social movement that cares about what is the epitome of a first-world-problem.
Look, I don't carry water for FSF or Stallman, but it's easy to make that statement in the context in the world they helped create. You can't imagine how much OS licensing used to cost, which would definitely be an impediment to non first-world populations (from an infrastructure, education, and economic point of view to the extent they can be separated)
edit: to expound, the world they helped create is one where there is a durable, vibrant, and mainstream OSS culture where anyone with a halfway decent internet connection can download the source code & compilation tools for a state of the art OS. Radicals become irrelevant when they win.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#93When 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 think you've completely missed the point of free software.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#94This message conflates two issues in an unfortunate way. One issue is the licensing of GCC, the other issue is the architecture of GCC (how modular it is). No one is arguing that GCC should change licenses. But he seems to think that making GCC more modular would somehow make it less free: > If GCC were to change from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal of freedom…
I've seen the argument made that somehow RMS and the gcc developers are against making gcc more modular. Where is everyone getting that idea, because that's not what I'm reading.
Indeed, this quote from David Edelsohn in response to ESR seems to indicate they are interested in making the gcc more modular:
>GCC is working toward re-factoring its code base toward a more compositional approach for "toolification". One can look at presentations from the recent GNU Cauldron 2013 for discussion of the topic.
So what am I missing?
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#95Earlier 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. Though, the point is, you can make free software work the way you want or work better. You're _allowed_ to. That isn't necessarily the case with other software; that is the point of free software.
If this were true than clang would be considered free software by RMS... There is more to RMS's version of 'freedom' than just being able to modify the code, the AGPL is a great example of this.
Clang IS free software, and RMS agrees. The difference is that GCC discourages proprietary extensions and subsequent lockdown.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#96When 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…
"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.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#97Earlier 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.
If LLVM is so bad why are the people who make it so much easier to work with? Who said it was bad? People have said it is not copyleft. 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. I think that's ridiculous. Do you really think corporate backers of LLVM would just ignore their economic incentives f…
> Who said it was bad?
RMS.
> People have said it is not copyleft.
RMS says that it is bad because it is not copyleft. Specifically, he says "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".
Do you not think that "terrible setback for our community" is a subset of "bad"?
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#98This message conflates two issues in an unfortunate way. One issue is the licensing of GCC, the other issue is the architecture of GCC (how modular it is). No one is arguing that GCC should change licenses. But he seems to think that making GCC more modular would somehow make it less free: > If GCC were to change from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal of freedom…
This is a good take on the deficiencies of Stallman's position here really. Linus stands directly against this sort of idea - his whole take on licensing has always been that he wants to make sure people contribute code back if they modify it, but otherwise can include the kernel in whatever they want - which provides a similar benefit - more people using Linux kernels, more people likely to want to improve Linux ker…
>Linus stands directly against this sort of idea
Linus and the rest of the Linux kernel developers make it intentionally hard to keep out-of-tree modules working against the kernel for the same reason that GCC does, which is to have the code included into the main project where it will benefit all end users instead of having proprietary/out-of-tree modules/plugins which are available to a select audience.
I can't see how you can claim that Linus stands 'directly against this sort of idea'. They seem very much aligned to me.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#99> The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal. I want to live in a world where innovation thrives and survival of the best technology reigns. Because the ultimate point of technology is to serve humanity by making our lives better. So stifling innovation just so that everyone has access to source code is backwards.
The rough line of reasoning here is that non-free software will, eventually, allow business tactics which run counter to software thriving and the best technology reigning.
Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
You feel the need to censor "heck"? Seriously though, I agree. Stallman here seems to be adopting almost a religious argument, not a pragmatic one. He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. If he prioritizes freedom over everything else, then more power to him, but to me talking about who "wins" and "loses" on some kind of arbitrary scale of freedom does not make a compelling case again…
I think that's the function of Stallman and what he will be remembered as: an absolute that's useful to measure your own position against.
I agree. Also it serves to be notable so people keep talking about it.