Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[Luke_Wolf]

Because LLVM major player is Apple.
Apple invented LLVM after GCC changed license to GPL3. The tivoization clause was critical.

Apple explicitly wanted to be able to lock-down all its technologies and products by technological measure.
They stayed with outdated GCC version which was still licensed under GPL2, then they started to rewrite a LLVM replacement.

Except that Apple didn't invent LLVM anymore than they invented CUPS, LLVM was initially created at the University of Illinois, and then in 2005 Apple decided to take over the project by hiring the development staff, just like they did with CUPS. Now this leads credence to the idea that they did so in order to avoid GPLv3 but they didn't invent the project.

(Not interested in the license war but wasn't about to let that misconception of apple inventing it stand)

[leech]

Yes, BSD is more liberal, which means more freedom. GPL otoh is about controlling the user, telling it what to do, and forcing the user to share, this is pure socialism. Probably that's why Stallman refused to condemn Stalin and communism when asked about.

The real difference between BSD and GPL license is that the GPL forces freedom and sharing of code, whereas BSD is 'take it and run'.

And that's precisely what RMS is talking about. That anyone could just take LLVM and extend it just enough to make it incompatible with the mainline and then push that on whatever distribution they want. GPL makes sure that any modifications have to be redistributed when the binaries are distributed. So if you just wanted to make a quick patch for your own uses, then you can do the same thing as BSD does. It's all about the distribution of the software.

It's just different levels of freedom. BSD may be more 'free' but GPL ensures freedom. It's kind of like communism that works, because unlike political communism, where there is always one jerk who decides he needs more than others, you can't (legally) do that with software communism.

[corebob]

The very fact that I am not the one who conceptualized the program and wrote the code.

If the programmer wants to give it out, it's pure goodwill on his part. But locking it away is the developer's right to do so if he so desires.

I once wrote a hacky (and very poor quality, segfault-prone but workable) program using GTK3 that runs top in the background and pipes the output to a textfile until it's stopped by the user, and then splits the output into different textfiles based on the parameters selected in the interface to facilitate some logging for a task last year. I'm not obligated (and have no desire) to give away the source to my little application.

I can't tell you to provide the source along with your product. But I certainly can tell my neighbour not to trust closed source.

[steefjeqv]

Nice analogy, if you compare that to GPL then you would expect the car to come with all schematics included and tools (including their schematics) freely available so you can build any and all parts of it.
And then you can imagine the mikado game of research - the first that invests loses

A bit off topic but I just couldn't resist this one :

http://wikispeed.org/

On topic : we need openess and freedom. Stallman is right.

Greetings,
Steven

[Annabel]

I 1000% agree with him

[carewolf]

LLVM came from academia (like the BSDs) and not created for the benefit of some political ideology.

So did GNU. Only GNU came first and as a response to a world without free software. BSD is a later invention by people who wrongfully believe free software would exist if developers and academia hadnt' stood up and created it using GPL. Ask yourself how would the BSDs ever have been possible with GCC?

[carewolf]

What's the problem in using GPLv3 licensing model? Why LLVM can't use this and yet be innovative?

I invite llvm plugin developers too joning us and using GPLv3.

Obs.: I'm not forcing anyone on this, it's a matter of choice, if you prefer strengthen proprietary it's up to you

GPLv3 wouldn't be suitable for plugins to IDEs like LLVM. LGPL would be better, but that wasn't the original reason behind its sudden acceleration to relevance, generally Clang exists because Jobs was insane and would rather throw money out the window than admit GPLv3 wasn't that bad an idea. Though like many think Jobs did out of arrogance, it has benefitted us all, in this case by creating a good competitive situation in GCC vs Clang.

[mrugiero]

The way RMS speaks you'd think that writing closed-source code was a crime against humanity. The fact is that GPLv3 makes things VERY awkward for companies to work with and other licenses like BSD are usually more suitable for different scenarios. What LLVM does is provide an alternative choice - if GCC suits you better, go for it, else you can pick LLVM. Everyone wins!

Well, according to his ethics, it is, and he acknowledges that. Other than that, I agree deeply with your post.

How? You didn't follow the link, did you? You didn't read the quote either.

I read the quote. Assumed the link pointed to the license from which the quote was taken. First line of my post is pure sarcasm, in case you didn't get it. Still, I ask, define wrong and tell me why Stallman is.

No no no that's not what I'm saying. I did not say that proprietary projects would use GPL and still not release source. I said that the proprietary would just not use the GPL code at all, and would still be proprietary in the end (but the same code will have been written twice, which is a itself is a loss for society).

The comparison was like that:
If you can't pirate it, you will certainly still use it and so you will buy it <=> If you can't use the code legally in a proprietary project, you will certainly still use it, and so you will open source your project.

And, well, it does not work like that.

Yes, I misunderstood your post. However, it's still a matter of costs and benefits. When you use copyleft, you level the balance to your side. It's up to the ones needing the features to decide if it's more worthy to rewrite the functionality themselves than to release their changes. It doesn't simply assume everyone will (or maybe Stallman in particular does, but I don't), but there can be a proportion, as there can be a proportion of pirates that simply need the software and would pay it only if they are unable to pirate it. Which IMO, is the case for almost every software aside from Photoshop (where lots of people do fine with GIMP), Office (LibreOffice.org), the OS and I guess games (I don't know if people wouldn't buy games if they weren't able to pirate them, but most likely they won't buy as many as they do pirate). Software like CAD, they'd probably buy, etc. And when we talk about reusing code, some companies will think reimplementing the functionality means too much time or money and end up using GPL code, which ideally means they will release the changes, and some others will reimplement and say "to hell with that". You still inclined things more to the release of code, compared to liberal licenses.
On reimplementing being a loss for society, I could say that applying Stallman's ethics the closed source implementation is the one at fault, for them not wanting to make free software is what leads to this loss.

Sharing in both ways works so good with LLVM that apparently we need to be reminded on how "evil" it is.

If it really seems to make no difference in how the code gets released, then why they seem to be against GPL? Why not just try to fix whatever they consider wrong with GCC? Otherwise, you should understand that enforcing is mandated by ethics for Stallman and people who think like him, and it's their moral duty to encourage others to enforce this.

Do you know what happens if you send some code to a GNU project? You have to give up your copyright to get it included. Means you could work on your spare time on code, send it to GNU and then having to open all your projects that might contain parts of it. And if you are lucky GNU will change the license to something entirely different since they have any right to do so.

What the GNU projects do has not much to do with choosing a license for your work. There are reasons to hand over the copyright, and you may or may not agree with them, and decide in consequence. Also, I'm not sure they can actually sue you for using your own code, as I'm not really sure that you resign to your copyright, but rather share it. You could probably still use it in whatever you want, even closed source. Although, patches for a GNU project are probably useless without their code base, so I don't see how you wouldn't be sued for closing someone else's code if using that.

GPL makes sense if you can sell services, BSD makes sense if you sell products and dont want rippofs immediatly, are hobbiest which just wants to fucking share stuff with no strings attached, or even for companies which want to collaborate.

First off, you are discussing a whole different thing than Stallman. You are talking practicality, he talks ethics. You two would never get to agree because you are not talking about the same subject, I wanted to point that out. Now, on practicality, BSD doesn't help you at all if you don't want fast ripoffs, proprietary is the one helping you there. Even GPL is more helpful there than BSD, as it takes out of the picture most of the big companies, who work in the closed. Maybe you mean basing your work on GPL or BSD, in which case I agree.

Well if someone claimed that a successful GPL program was a "set-back", I would consider them wrong all the same.
Even proprietary programs are better than nothing as long as they don't imper competition or prevent other solutions (EEE, lock-in, etc..).

Why? He doesn't claim it's a setback in technical grounds, he makes it very clear. It's an ethical setback, according to his ethics. If you don't share them, you don't need to care, and will not be a setback according to your ethics, but that doesn't change the fact it is according to his, plain and simple. He makes clear what he believes, and gives arguments to prove that assuming his set of ethics LLVM is a step back.
If you believe GPL is too restrictive, success of a GPL licensed code base would be a setback, because it means the community got weakened in their right to choose what to do with their code. If you think practicality comes first, you will think that if Debian chooses a poorer but freer (according to some set of ethics) implementation is a setback.

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

You mean those who give up freedom for popularity?

George W Stallman likes to rant about the "threat" of corporations and closed source software, where have we heard that before I wonder? Oh right, it's the same language the United States government uses to justify "anti-terrorism" measures that erode freedom.

With the big difference you get the patriotic act up you ass, while you choose to use or stop using GPL software.

The GNU GPL is anti-freedom and enslaves developers, it truly is the Patriot Act of software licenses.

Enslaves who? You want to use GPL'd code? Use it, but release the changes. You don't want to? Well, don't enslave other developers, do your own work. If anyone "enslaves" anyone, is companies taking the code for free, instead of paying developers for it. Although, contrary to some people who like to spill blame everywhere, I don't think none enslaves anyone. The ones giving the code as BSD don't really care, and if they are OK with people using their code in closed derivatives, it's great for them. Respect their choices, dick, both the ones of those who agree with you, and the ones of those who don't.

I advise all to abandon George W Stallman's Patriot Act License and embrace the true freedom of permissively licensed / public domain works.

Advice taken, and ignored.

[mark45]

... It's just different levels of freedom. BSD may be more 'free' but GPL ensures freedom. It's kind of like communism that works, because unlike political communism, where there is always one jerk who decides he needs more than others, you can't (legally) do that with software communism.

That's exactly what our ancestors fought - communism and socialism, this is deeply anti-American, anti capitalist and anti free market, it has a "sharing" agenda and forces you to do so. Given that Stallman regularly visits China to give speeches I think he secretly works for the Chinese government.

[corebob]

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

George W Stallman likes to rant about the "threat" of corporations and closed source software, where have we heard that before I wonder? Oh right, it's the same language the United States government uses to justify "anti-terrorism" measures that erode freedom.

The GNU GPL is anti-freedom and enslaves developers, it truly is the Patriot Act of software licenses.

I advise all to abandon George W Stallman's Patriot Act License and embrace the true freedom of permissively licensed / public domain works.

If it hadn't been for the GPL licenses there is no reason to believe most of the fropen source projects would exist.

If you can make a project that Microsoft's CEO calls "Growing like a cancer" and still can't destroy, you know you did something clever.

I don't*mind Microsoft doing things their own way, I'm just glad someone found a model that can survive without big brothers thumbs up.