Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by rudregues View Post
    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
    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    They stayed with outdated GCC version which was still licensed under GPL2, then they started to rewrite a LLVM replacement.

    Stallman sees free software as software from which proprietary companies may not rip off.
    Apple wants to explicitly rip off of the software, hence insisting heavily on absent freedom protections.

    There is simply no other explanations.

    Those who try derail thread into different definitions of freedom are big jokes. There is freedom, which requires recursive protection of itself. And there is anarchy.

    Up to the developer to decide which to pick. Up to user to decide which to support. This way or other, "opensource" would emerge.

    I am with Stallman on this one.

    Comment


    • #22
      Stallman is wrong, he hates proprietary code and patents, the GPL states:
      A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of,
      or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License.
      You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of
      distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
      the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a
      discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those
      copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work,
      unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

      Comment


      • #23
        The same as usual from RMS - but again, he's right.
        Still, llvm can probably evolve to a good software, and basically it isn't a bad thing if a company gives some financial backup to a code project - just that there are some companies which are know evil: MS, apple, Oracle and so on. I support BSD tech but I do not like the license. For a few cases it is good, but BSD/MIT is a one way license not making sure that the free code stays free. I think LGPL is a nice compromise of both worlds. You can use it in a commercial and/or closed project, but the very free part stays free.
        Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by artivision View Post
          No, you are completely wrong to this one. If someone use something like GCC to compile a graphics engine for example, he can do it only for x86 and we cannot do anything about that, just because he can. LLVM doesn't allow that. And sources will become better if they programmed and optimized for virtualization class computing. My opinion is that we don't have the right to punish the thief politician, but we have the obligation to create a system that he can't do it or he doesn't need to.
          I'm not really sure what you try to say, but I will answer every meaning I can find. Correct me if I misinterpret any part, please.
          If you mean as a developer I can build for a single platform if I want, then you are wrong in the assertion that LLVM doesn't allow it. I can prove it easily, as I have some code I usually build with CLANG, an LLVM-based C compiler you probably know about, and I build it for x86 only because that's the hardware I have to test on.
          If you mean GCC doesn't allow you to build for other platforms than x86, you are wrong again in the general case, it's enough to see the list of supported platforms. For the specific case of graphic engines, I'd gladly accept any references you could give.

          On sources becoming better, that makes no sense to me, at all. Sources are better if you write them better. Being programmed for virtualization doesn't change a thing. LLVM is not intended to be used only as a means for virtualization, but rather uses virtualization as a tool, using an IR based on this, AFAIK.
          Also, your view is clearly inconsistent with using BSD-like licenses: you say we don't have the right to punish the thief politician, which clearly is a statement against copyleft, but you also say we have the obligation to create a system in which he can't (which? "can't" exists when there is enforcement only) or doesn't need to (which actually, in terms of retaining code freedom, is impossible: either you give them the code, or you don't, and none fixes the problem, as you either enforce him not to steal or you actually just change the word to say you are giving it to him, while you considered it a problem at first just because of semantics).

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by mark45 View Post
            Stallman is wrong, he hates proprietary code and patents, the GPL states:
            He hates proprietary code and patents? I wouldn't ever guessed that. How did you come to such enlightened conclusion? Maybe you just read it from him? Because he never denied such a fact?

            Now, how you define "wrong", and why Stallman is?

            Comment


            • #26
              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!

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by artivision View Post
                Stallman is wrong to this one. He has a limited vision for the word freedom. A closed program that runs on all platforms is more free than an open one that runs only on one (i speak for hardware and software). In our case GCC did take the Intel road for statically linking compilation as MS compilers did. So they benefit mostly Intel and x86 monopoly and Instruction_set based computing, and they stall technology. We have the same computing for 40 years. I prefer a BSD LLVM because i am thinking than if consoles like PS4 use it, and some graphic engines use it as well, there is a huge change to get rid of x86 processors, in favour of better processors or free processors and easy emulation. I don't understand something: What is the importance to have something free (copy left), that doesn't work or can't be used with a new vision of what is beneficial for as in our time.
                What a troll.
                "A closed program that runs on all platforms is more free than an open one that runs only on one (i speak for hardware and software)." - what an utter bullshit. We have a few games on steam today. Some of them are running on Mac and Windows. Some good titles. Am I better because of that somehow? Not at all. Open source some of those windows only games and they will be ported to Linux and perhaps Mac and BSD, will I and rest of my Linux bros and sis benefit? Yeap!

                "So they benefit mostly Intel and x86 monopoly and Instruction_set based computing, and they stall technology." - tell it to Linux kernel please. AFAIK, GCC is also ported to RISC platforms.

                "We have the same computing for 40 years." we still commonly use hammers on building sites. Still damn efficient. I am not even talking about benefits of that(non static libs) system.

                "i am thinking than if consoles like PS4 use it, and some graphic engines use it as well, there is a huge change to get rid of x86 processors" - correct me if I am wrong, they use AMD CPU which is x32 compatible.

                "I prefer a BSD LLVM because i am thinking than if consoles like PS4 use it, and some graphic engines use it as well, there is a huge change to get rid of x86 processors" - so in other words, it's a speculation? Based on what?

                " I don't understand something: What is the importance to have something free (copy left), that doesn't work or can't be used with a new vision of what is beneficial for as in our time." - I have no doubt you don't understand. I will explain however, with GPL3, you can and you have opportunity to improve, guaranteed one. BSD as OS sucks balls, even though Mac is based of it. And Mac is second most popular OS on the market! People want stability, and that's what GPL2/3 gives. It's also better for competition.

                Are you FUDing us here?
                Last edited by dimko; 24 January 2014, 02:14 PM. Reason: error corrections, added question.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Either you recognize what a game changer GPL is, or you don't. Its that simple.
                  I'm with RMS on this one

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                    He hates proprietary code and patents? I wouldn't ever guessed that. How did you come to such enlightened conclusion? Maybe you just read it from him? Because he never denied such a fact?

                    Now, how you define "wrong", and why Stallman is?
                    How? You didn't follow the link, did you? You didn't read the quote either.
                    Last edited by mark45; 24 January 2014, 02:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by brosis View Post
                      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.

                      Stallman sees free software as software from which proprietary companies may not rip off.
                      Apple wants to explicitly rip off of the software, hence insisting heavily on absent freedom protections.
                      Sure, you can keep BSD-Style code for yourself, improve upon it and keep that to yourself - or give it back which might be a good thing for both sides and is happening alot.

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

                      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.

                      But hey, that wouldnt happen because they are not evil while all companies are!

                      I been with GPL as hobbiest for a while until I actually thought about it. And while I understand the motivation and use behind it, I understand aswell that you dont want to share everything immediatly so that everyone can rip off the good parts, integrate it rather badly and just use some cheap advertising tricks to get all the attention. And Im not even talking about commercial software, but free tools.

                      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.

                      There can and will always be abuse, be it companies just taking stuff and not giving anything back (well.. they just arent required to), companies just scrambling stole GPL code, people selling opensource for ludicrous prices, and GPL ideologist taking stuff from BSD software not giving anything back and even bickering about it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X