Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

    Phoronix: Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

    Eric S. Raymond has made some very interesting -- and what surely will be considered very controversial remarks -- about the Free Software Foundation's views on the GCC compiler and its lack of acceptance towards (potentially non-free) compiler plug-ins in a time of LLVM's Clang existence and ongoing acceptance...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU3ODU

  • #2
    ESR and Plugins

    ESR is either unaware of the facts or being disingenous for rhetorical purposes. Fact of that matter is that GCC has supported plugins for a long time and carved licensing exceptions for such plugins to make it palaptable for other purposes. Example,

    https://fedorahosted.org/gcc-python-plugin/

    There are interface issues and other technical problems which need to be fixed and GCC developers are well aware of that. ESR's post doesn't seem to serve any real purpose other than to flame and misdirect the conversation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Eric S Raymond is well known to be a traitor of Freedom in software.

      His advocacy on the so called "unix philosophy" has hold Linux in certain areas. RMS once said he is more harm then good to the FOSS community.

      Comment


      • #4
        David Kastrup puts it best in his reply...

        You are crossposting to two public project lists of the GNU project with
        inflammatory language and mischaracterizations. You have been involved
        with the GNU project long enough to be well aware that this kind of
        crowbar approach does not lead to much more than headlines about Free
        Software infighting.
        Quoted from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html

        Comment


        • #5
          What's next, I wonder, a proposal to relicense GCC under a BSD licence?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by M1kkko
            What's next, I wonder, a proposal to relicense GCC under a BSD licence?
            No, modify the law and take LLVM devs to the Free Software court and force them to re-license LLVM under GPLv3.

            It'll teach Apple, B$D and all those Anti-GPL trolls a lesson.
            Last edited by endman; 01-21-2014, 10:21 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I see this as a slow attempt to turn things proprietary and earn money by lock-in.

              Comment


              • #8
                Meh

                I don't think it matters. Clang isn't going to go away if GCC starts accepting non-free plugins, and i don't think it would even slightly slow down anything. That's not why people use clang.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  I don't think it matters. Clang isn't going to go away if GCC starts accepting non-free plugins, and i don't think it would even slightly slow down anything. That's not why people use clang.
                  This^. Clang uses a completely different design philosophy and I bet it is interesting to the devs to see where it will take them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    I don't think it matters. Clang isn't going to go away if GCC starts accepting non-free plugins, and i don't think it would even slightly slow down anything. That's not why people use clang.
                    Yes, it's about choice. What matters is the need, everyone will choose what best fit their need if there is a choose.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X