Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

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

  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    => you wouldn't download a car
    I can download music, games, movies. IP is there for a reason. In this case it's against my freedom, but when comes to GPL it protects it, because any change to GPL licensed code will be available to me. BSD can't give me such guarantee.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
    [...] which allows the code to be [...] enslaved, stolen etc.
    => you wouldn't download a car

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    The GPL tells me I can't license my additions to your software how I see fit. That is a restriction. That makes it free only if you redefine free to mean something other than free.

    Redefining words was one of Eric Arthur Blair's key criticisms of Stalinism in 1984, do you really want to go there?
    Yeah and playing strawman can be even worse. GPL gives freedom to code unlike BSD which allows the code to be included into proprietary products thus enslaved, stolen etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    The primary foes GPL is battling against are Apple and Microsoft. GPL has pretty big opponents but it's made up a pretty good fight thus far.
    I think the key concept here is "battling", "foe", and "fight", which leads to the "If you are not with us you are with them" type of hate.
    The permissive crowd is (generalizing a bit here) much less into the conflict rhetoric.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Of course, ultimately this article isn't about what license *you* should use. It's about Stallman being frightened that the GPL ecosystem itself, which tries to force people to write opensource program code by offering an arsenal of technological innovations that can be built on top of only by writing opensourced code, will cumble down. It's not about GPL vs BSD per se. FreeBSD and folks are good projects that produce opensource code and I doubt Stallman would claim otherwise. It's just that the BSD code will not benefit the GPL ecosystem as it doesn't add more innovations you have to write opensource code to use. The primary foes GPL is battling against are Apple and Microsoft. GPL has pretty big opponents but it's made up a pretty good fight thus far. While I'm not entirely sure I agree with this ideology, it does make a considerable amount of sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    He is saying that if someone creates a proprietary program that replicates an open source one and then give the binary away for free while taking the maintenance burden all on itself, and developing awesome new features but still as freeware, and doing quick bug fixes for everyone with a good track record of long term support for legacy corporate client, then people will abandon the open source base project, and that if the source disappears from the internet and everyone's PC, it will effectively have been closed.
    And I must admit that if that happens, sure, a BSD project can be closed.
    The number of these hypotheticals that have actually played out in the way you have described could easily be counted on one hand.
    The truth of the matter is that business will usually leave their product upstream compatible, because it requires less work and hence is usually cheaper in the long run.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
    The ONLY part that can be proprietary is anything on top of the original or modified from the original. In many cases, that's all the want to do, they want a platform that they can build off of but don't need to maintain that said base. It means they get their product out the door and it works with or easily replaces other proprietary code because they are all building on the same base.
    He is saying that if someone creates a proprietary program that replicates an open source one and then give the binary away for free while taking the maintenance burden all on itself, and developing awesome new features but still as freeware, and doing quick bug fixes for everyone with a good track record of long term support for legacy corporate client, then people will abandon the open source base project, and that if the source disappears from the internet and everyone's PC, it will effectively have been closed.
    And I must admit that if that happens, sure, a BSD project can be closed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    Replacing complex questions with even more complex answers gets one nowhere. I prefer real-life practice to cloud philosophies, thank you.
    What does it mean "Replacing complex questions with even more complex answers"? Are you saying that you are replacing a complex question with a simple answer? If so, why do you acknowledge the complexity of the question, but refuse to acknowledge the complexity of an (possible) answer? That doesn't make sense to me: you either accept that to difficult questions come complex (if any) answers, or you don't bother questioning in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • profoundWHALE
    replied
    Originally posted by artivision View Post
    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.
    The ONLY part that can be proprietary is anything on top of the original or modified from the original. In many cases, that's all the want to do, they want a platform that they can build off of but don't need to maintain that said base. It means they get their product out the door and it works with or easily replaces other proprietary code because they are all building on the same base.

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by artivision View Post
    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.

    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.
    Pretty much - yes.
    Though there are two use cases within BSD, omitting the use case - where software is a protocol (.org's RFC) or software is not the selling point (driver dev):
    - small developer, that basically sells some rights for exchange of price, and
    - large developer company, that not only sells some rights in exchange of price, but also demands and wants to exercise control not only over software, but all over the branch. They use proprietary to terraform the - no, not ecosystem; those who are just smaller.

    The key difficulty with GPL for a regular developer is how to get paid. But, if developer starts thinking outside of the box and stops selling copies, but starts selling actual contributions or support (adaptation, service, development - all that is "contribution"), then it will work.

    Likewise, outside of GPL, this model turns very bad. Think of pay-to-win games and opencore, this still has all the oppression toolset in place.

    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    Stop already that cheap rethroic, please... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)
    Replacing complex questions with even more complex answers gets one nowhere. I prefer real-life practice to cloud philosophies, thank you.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X