Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[brosis]

If you know how to use a dictionary, why are you having so much trouble with someone pointing out that the GPL is not a free license?

Prohibiting removal of freedom, is a good thing for freedom itself. GPL is a free license, it is not anarchic license.

GPL restricts anarchy, but it does not restrict freedom.

[brad0]

Prohibiting removal of freedom, is a good thing for freedom itself. GPL is a free license, it is not anarchic license.

GPL restricts anarchy, but it does not restrict freedom.

Strings attached is NOT freedom.

And don't even get me started on the ridiculous bullshit of versions of GPL being incompatible with other versions of the GPL. What a complete joke.

[Sergio]

Prohibiting removal of freedom, is a good thing for freedom itself. GPL is a free license, it is not anarchic license.

GPL restricts anarchy, but it does not restrict freedom.

Stop already that cheap rethroic, please... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)

[Dharc]

Linux isn't great because its technically great, actually it's not technically superior at all when you compare it to more modern architectures. It's in the running sure, can replace a unix system better than unix, but that only explains why it's a practical choice. The reason it's great is because it's free, and there is NO question in my mind. If Linux was BSD licensed it would be another dying BSD system with many closed forks.

And BTW GPL doesn't control any end-users, which is what most of us are, and whom I believe code should benefit. Reciprocal licenses ensure that the developers can't close up previously opened code, you can agree or disagree, but don't insult leftism or the GPL.

BSD is dying? are you crazy? Apple collaborate with BSD codes, Android has many BSD components (like Bionic libc, look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_%28software%29)
Guys, the permissive licenses have more freedom because they are "donations" for who wants. If a company want, we are unlucky, if FSF want, we are lucky.
Permissive codes can be relicenced to proprietary or "free", FSF could made this, but no! Stallman is too proud to take advantage of BSD code and contribute to upstream and relicence your code under GPL...See the Hurd, why GNU needs a hybrid kernel when the majority Unices kernels are monolithic? If Hurd have problems to be developed, fork the FreeBSD kernel and relicence under GPL (and obviously contribute with upstream)!
Softwares or licenses are free when they respects the 4 freedoms, and BSD license do it! FSF wantseveryone colaborate with your own code but can't colaborate with permissive BUT FREE code! Hypocrisy!
In a society where free softwares reign, GPL is not necessary, that's why permissive but FREE licences are the future...because the human will be more honests. So please, no licence war, just contribute with free software and free society because Stallman does not use 100% software under gpl .

[jsdyson]

LLVM is a reasonable alternative to GCC for various purposes

If the core of LLVM remains open and free, is that enough?

I agree... Once a project gains a certain size on the net, it is unlikely that 'proprietary' versions will make the "free and open forever" versions disappear. One interesting double-edged attribute of the net is that it is difficult to cause openly posted software/mistakenly distributed pictures or other such information to disappear. It seems that with GPL licensed software, almost everyone can control/embargo their own work product EXCEPT those who add their own intellectual property to the GPL software. GPL licensed software has certain rules for add-on software developers, who must be willing to distribute their add-on work contingent on binary distribution. Others, such as users/distributors and other exploiters (don't mean to be prejudicial, really!!!) of GPLed works dont' appear to have their own hard earned work quite as encumbered as the work done by add-on developers.

---

Example: someone who writes a manual for GPL software -- perhaps a super friendly/superior (if possible) manual for GCC... That manual is not necessarily encumbered by the GPL (or any other specific license.) The manual writer can distribute a copy of the GPLed binaries and the associated source (that is, the work product and expose the innovation associated with the software), but still limit the distribution of their own effective add-on to the GPLed software (for example, the manual could be a very wonderful enhancement of the GCC compiler by making it easier to use/more useful -- and the author of the manual need not distribute the source code of the manual), but the person adding 'really cool' features to the GPLed compiler itself must be willing to expose their own intellectual property/hard won ideas and work product.

---

I understand that the above is a bit of a stretch, but when making very significant feature enhancements to the GPL compiler -- or any compiler with modules or even enhancements linked in, such innovations might be quite divorced from the original GPLed source code base, but it seems like the fact that these potentially, really cool innovations fall under the GPL rules just because the code is linked together with a GPL codebase? Of course, the GPL rules should be followed -- IMO not just for legal reasons, but for ethical reasons... But the fact that simply linking the new code into the GPLed codebase, the new/additional source/intellectual property must be made available for distribution -- or actually distributed -- based upon binary distribution makes the GPL rules have interesting planned effects.

Software developers who do significant amounts of work on GPLed works must effectively give away the results of their toil (intellectual property, the hard part of programming) in certain circumstances and this requirement results from a choice made by the add-on GPL software developer and rules created by the original choice of the GPL license.

One very good thing is that there is now a rather competitive (but still a little green) compiler & partial toolchain, with an interesting architecture: LLVM/Clang. This interesting compiler/VM/etc, gives the add-on developer more freedom of choice until the last minute (for example, after doing potentially much more work than originally expected) to embargo their source and intellectual property, perhaps distribute the add-ons contingent on additional agreements to keep the new source away from the add-on developer's competition. The LLVM scheme seems very modular, and seems to have been designed from the beginning with a very different architecture, different purposes and capabilities from the GCC compiler. The GPL developers appear to have planned to avoid creating or allowing some of modular capabilities for licensing reasons. (That is, strongly avoiding potentially beneficial features which provide SOFTWARE capabilities and function thereby avoiding or minimizing any bypass of GPL rules and regulations .)

Whatever side of the GPL/free-but-non-GPL debate one might believe in, the marketplace will decide. It is also true that once a project becomes a certain size, there can be real advantages for the add-on software developer to submit updates/enhancements to software with licenses like LLVM (or GPL), because it makes ongoing support for an otherwise forked codebase to be partially taken-on by the community at large. The GPLv2 itself doesn't really require distribution of source code to everyone in the world, but to those who receive binaries anyway. Support on the net is naturally encouraged because of the cost of support by the original author. So, for projects that are medium/large (and LLVM qualifies), EVEN WHEN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MIGHT GIVE THE ADD-ON DEVELOPER A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, there is an ongoing choice by the innovative add-on-developer to continue the embargo, or to recognize that there might be a significant advantage to submit the add-on works. In the case of LLVM/free software, sometimes, the submission might be partial, so that the net community at large still benefits from those who do real creative innovation, but the entire nest egg of creativity doesn't have to be given away by the person who does the add-on work.

On the other hand, if the add-on LLVM-style software developer is needlessly greedy, and won't submit their changes, then there might be a wasted ongoing cost to support the specially forked version. Over the long term, the add-on developer who continues development (assuming non-trivial add-ons), supporting the forked infrastructure could eventually be needlessly costly, and submitting the previously embargoed upgrades would be beneficial to both the developer and the community at large. By that time, a good/creative developer will have produced new/additional enhancements that will still maintain ongoing profit and competitiveness over and above those who simply want to go for a free ride on someone else's IP.

So, for those developers who agree to the GPL terms, then they know that there will be more rules associated their binary distribution which will probably require that they pass on their source code TO THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE BINARY FROM THEM. That was a choice of the developer who choses to work on a GPL codebase. This is also the decision by the developers of the original GPLed software, and is reasonable to consider the GPL binary 'rules' as part of the cost to develop/distribute improvements to the GPLed works.

For those developers who don't agree to the GPL terms, then it is good that there is a codebase that doesn't have the GPL rules, and the add-on developer who does the hard innovative work can defer choosing whether or not to distribute the add-on source code (choice based upon whatever the advantage might be -- e.g. support by other developers on the net, or perhaps embargo the hard earned add-on work because of really cool creative ideas and the desire to profit for at least a certain amount of time.)

Let the market decide. The market doesn't always make the 'smartest'/'wisest' choice, but it will work well enough.

John Dyson

[mrugiero]

Android has many BSD components (like Bionic libc, look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_%28software%29)

I was about to make a wrong correction, and somehow I think it's worth mentioning. I was about to say that he probably meant BSD OSes (thus, Bionic had nothing to do here), but then I realized it wouldn't make sense if we talk about LLVM.

See the Hurd, why GNU needs a hybrid kernel when the majority Unices kernels are monolithic? If Hurd have problems to be developed, fork the FreeBSD kernel and relicence under GPL (and obviously contribute with upstream)!

If they'd end up changing their mind and using a monolithic approach they might as well just use Linux, which seems to be in better shape and have more momentum. However, I do think they might take advantage of the MINIX kernel, being it MIT (IIRC, but maybe it was BSD; I recall it was a liberal license) and a microkernel, and just make it GPL as the license allows them. Anyway, I recall one of the authors of the current iteration said they are trying different approaches and that in part the purpose is to try to make it better than current unixes.

Softwares or licenses are free when they respects the 4 freedoms, and BSD license do it! FSF wantseveryone colaborate with your own code but can't colaborate with permissive BUT FREE code! Hypocrisy!

It's not hypocrisy, they do believe it's better to enforce others to make their derivatives free. Hypocrisy would be to deny BSD is a free license, and they don't, they acknowledge liberal licenses are free. They even recommend them in specific contexts.

In a society where free softwares reign, GPL is not necessary, that's why permissive but FREE licences are the future...because the human will be more honests. So please, no licence war, just contribute with free software and free society because Stallman does not use 100% software under gpl .

Maybe it will happen as you say, I'd like to share your hopes, but in a world like the one you describe, GPL wouldn't make a difference either: if everyone is more honest and willingly contribute to free projects, while unneeded, the GPL wouldn't keep anyone from contributing because of the enforcement, as being so accustomed to everyone releasing the code they wouldn't even think about someone wanting to keep their derivatives for themselves. In fact, at the beginning of programming there weren't free licenses because software was intrinsically free (in the way that it was an unspoken norm to give your code with the software). For the same reason, nobody would bother to avoid a restrictive license if nobody even thinks of doing what it restricts you to do.
Anyway, I share your plead for stopping the patent wars, it's just not going to happen, sadly.

[artivision]

Ok people, put the ON button on your brains again. Free will has nothing to do with human liberties and rights. My free will can be to kill you for my own benefit. All freedoms have limitations and restrictions, your right and your freedom ends where another person's right and freedom start, plus that someone has the right to defend him self when you attack his freedom even when he crushes yours.

The same is with GPL. Doesn't restrict your liberties but gives respect to liberties of the others to, by preventing you to do a crime against the others. The crime is the Closed/Patented/IP knowledge. Maybe laws don't write that but human liberty does, property on knowledge is a crime against humanity!!! When you buy a car you want to have the only keys and the screws of the engine must be universal and available to you so you can do what you want. The same with software and every other knowledge, if someone doesn't want to share it with you its their right, but to sell you locked property wile they are protected with patents to, this is a crime against humanity.

That is the only difference with people that love GPL and people that lave BSD. Those how love BSD only for the reason that allows them to sell closed code, are criminals regardless if they know it. The real question is why all the rest we have to discus ideas of abettors to a crime against humanity. Want it or not GPL will be the Arc of free knowledge and the markets cannot decide against it, they don't have the power.

BSD would be a free license if patents/closed/ip didn't exist. Now its just another license with some free stuff. Is useful only like a bridge between two worlds. Just a small portion of free knowledge will be BSD, the big part will always be GPL.

Practical example: Someone can actual takeover a BSD program by use it to develop something closed. Someone will say "but as the first thing remains open", no, the closed remake can be exactly in the direction that the original designed to go, so the original can be actually stopped. So BSD cannot even do the simplest, protect the actual open knowledge. If Linux was BSD, it would be taken over by now. We wouldn't be able to freely develop it and they would ask as to stop.

[Sergio]

Ok people, put the ON button on your brains again. Free will has nothing to do with human liberties and rights. My free will can be to kill you for my own benefit. All freedoms have limitations and restrictions, your right and your freedom ends where another person's right and freedom start, plus that someone has the right to defend him self when you attack his freedom even when he crushes yours.

The same is with GPL. Doesn't restrict your liberties but gives respect to liberties of the others to, by preventing you to do a crime against the others. The crime is the Closed/Patented/IP knowledge. Maybe laws don't write that but human liberty does, property on knowledge is a crime against humanity!!! When you buy a car you want to have the only keys and the screws of the engine must be universal and available to you so you can do what you want. The same with software and every other knowledge, if someone doesn't want to share it with you its their right, but to sell you locked property wile they are protected with patents to, this is a crime against humanity.

That is the only difference with people that love GPL and people that lave BSD. Those how love BSD only for the reason that allows them to sell closed code, are criminals regardless if they know it. The real question is why all the rest we have to discus ideas of abettors to a crime against humanity. Want it or not GPL will be the Arc of free knowledge and the markets cannot decide against it, they don't have the power.

BSD would be a free license if patents/closed/ip didn't exist. Now its just another license with some free stuff. Is useful only like a bridge between two worlds. Just a small portion of free knowledge will be BSD, the big part will always be GPL.

Practical example: Someone can actual takeover a BSD program by use it to develop something closed. Someone will say "but as the first thing remains open", no, the closed remake can be exactly in the direction that the original designed to go, so the original can be actually stopped. So BSD cannot even do the simplest, protect the actual open knowledge. If Linux was BSD, it would be taken over by now. We wouldn't be able to freely develop it and they would ask as to stop.

Did you at least read the article? Please, do. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will it has everything to do.

Surprise! Things are not as simple as you suggest.

I think "freedom" should be avoided, as evidently people are clueless about what it entails.

[erendorn]

Ok people, put the ON button on your brains again. Free will has nothing to do with human liberties and rights. My free will can be to kill you for my own benefit. All freedoms have limitations and restrictions, your right and your freedom ends where another person's right and freedom start, plus that someone has the right to defend him self when you attack his freedom even when he crushes yours.

Freedom != rights
Not being allowed to kill people is a reduction of your freedom. The fact that you agree easily do this reduction, in exchange for increased security (which is a right. You are not "free" not to be killed, you have a right of not to be killed), does not change that. People trade rights to freedom for others rights, and it's good, but restrictions do not give you freedom. (freedom is not a synonym of good or positive).

As a matter of fact, the interdiction to kill people is not always symmetric, and James Bond would really consider that a loss of his license to kill would reduce his freedom.

[yogi_berra]

Speaking of giving up rights.