Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    And Stallman's agenda now becomes clear.

    "You must give your stuff to us with no restrictions because we want them and we need them to help us, but you're not getting your hands on OUR stuff because we don't want to help others ."

    against the BSD's

    "Take our stuff and feel free to use it anyway you want if it helps, and give back as much as you want when you feel like it"
    Where is RMS asking for others to give them stuff with "no restriction"? He's inviting people to contribute code under GPLv3, that implies the exact same "restrictions" which FSF themselves places on their software.

    Copyleft enforces reciprocity. That's the entire point of it.

    Comment


    • #92
      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
      No it's not. An open program can be ported to any platform. A closed one is just that, closed, you don't know what's in it, you don't know what backdoors the NSA has forced the authors to add in, you can't modify it, port it, do anything with it other than passively consume it.

      You have a very limited vision of freedom yourself. Freedom always needs to be protected with laws or restrictions. Attempting to give every freedom to everyone only results in anarchy. And anarchy is not freedom, it's only freedom for the strongest.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
        This may be good for journalists and fanbois but GCC is still the first choice.
        I use clang on daily basis because it is three times faster (!!) on the same source, and uses 2GB RAM instead of 4.5GB for a single (template-heavy) source file. The fact that even journalists recognize technical merits of clang maybe just means that they are very obvious.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by discordian View Post
          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
          It's always funny when people use car analogies with open source (seriously, what is it with car analogies?) when they're not aware that there actually exist open source cars.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_car

          As for the "first that invest loses" fallacy - go look at the Linux kernel. Wow, those dozens of companies sure didn't know they'd "lose" by investing in kernel development!

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by mark45 View Post
            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.
            Nice trolling. Seriously, that's pretty funny.

            *slow clap*

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by artivision View Post
              When you build with LLVM, you have ASM bytecode output. An LLVM binary is universal with no ISA linking. Then at the runtime a JIT compiler final-forms the code for an ISA. The final form is not saved somewhere.
              I don't think that you have actually used LLVM?

              Sure, it can be used in the way that you describe. But it can equally be used with the next stage, which is to compile to machine code. This is how Apple uses it. Their LLVM compiler used in Xcode does not produce files to JIT later. It produces binaries containing x86_64 machine code, x86 machine code, and/or ARM machine code.

              Using JIT every time the code runs is almost always a waste of time. Why do it when you can do it one time and be done?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
                Can we all agree that BSD offers more 'freedom' while GPL offers more 'free software'?
                No, we can't all agree on that. Some of us can, others of us can't. That's because we all have the freedom to agree or disagree with whatever we want.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by dee. View Post
                  Nice trolling. Seriously, that's pretty funny.

                  *slow clap*
                  The definition of trolling doesn't fit the quoted action of shining the light of Truth on slavemaster Stallman and his anti-freedom Patriot Act software license.

                  Stallman is a false flag and should be shunned by those campaigning for real freedom, say no to his "state-mandatory" NSA-TSA-Patriot Act sluttery.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    While an interesting philosophical argument, the practical ramifications seem close to zero.

                    Think about the risk here: some private company takes LLVM and invests god-knows how much making enough properitary improvements to matter and then goes looking for buyers for a closed-source fork? There's no way that's going to be economical.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jasonditz View Post
                      While an interesting philosophical argument, the practical ramifications seem close to zero.

                      Think about the risk here: some private company takes LLVM and invests god-knows how much making enough properitary improvements to matter and then goes looking for buyers for a closed-source fork? There's no way that's going to be economical.
                      It is already happening. Xcode is proprietary, as is the whole of ios and osx. PS4 with its development kit also. Exactly how has the open license of LLVM made them realise that they should share what ever code they build on top of it back? There seems to be a surprisingly large crowd not realising that all the openness we enjoy today has been very hard fought through decades with copy-left as the main enabler. There is nothing wrong with permissive licensing, it has its usage, but please do not confuse that with the success of open source. I believe it is the other way around. Through the success enabled by copy-left, large software houses realised the tremendous value provided by open source developers. Permissive licensing is in many cases their attempt to tap into the value without committing to anything. Apple wants your code, but only if you are happy with paying them for the same code further down the road.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X