Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[artivision]

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).

Your first paragraph is wrong. LLVM is building low level virtual machine (assembly like) binaries, with lots of optimization (bytecode extensions for different styles, like big vectors). It's the first time i hear that can build only for one instruction set. While i have build experimental gpu shaders, i haven't found any option for a specific ISA only. And anyway the heavy LLVM part and the reason of choose is about virtualization. If we had something like LLVM years back, maybe today's we could have an open CPU, that could run Wine and first class games compiled with LLVM.

[prodigy_]

The fact is that GPLv3 makes things VERY awkward for companies to work with

Yeah, it makes it awkward for them to abuse community efforts for their own gain. You got that right.

[Truth]

Enjoy

That does not support the assertion.

[GreatEmerald]

So, we're back to the whole BSD vs GPL license thing again are we?

Uh, what were you expecting in the comment section of an article on RMS commenting on GPL vs permissive licensed programs?

Your first paragraph is wrong. LLVM is building low level virtual machine (assembly like) binaries, with lots of optimization (bytecode extensions for different styles, like big vectors). It's the first time i hear that can build only for one instruction set. While i have build experimental gpu shaders, i haven't found any option for a specific ISA only. And anyway the heavy LLVM part and the reason of choose is about virtualization. If we had something like LLVM years back, maybe today's we could have an open CPU, that could run Wine and first class games compiled with LLVM.

Last I checked, LLVM has nothing to do with virtual machines, apart from that you can build one with it.

Given that Stallman regularly visits China to give speeches I think he secretly works for the Chinese government.

Conspiravision?.

[prodigy_]

Can we all agree that BSD offers more 'freedom' while GPL offers more 'free software'?

We can agree that "freedom" rhetoric is overrated. Democracy does not work and people are not born equal. Corporations are the real rulers of the world and our very lives belong to them - more and more with each passing year. Today freedom is simply about how much of anything you can keep beyond their grasp and GPL is all about keeping their greedy hands at bay as far as software is concerned.

[xeekei]

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.

Anyone using the term "anti-American" loses all credibility instantly. It's a stupid term.
I don't want to be American, so anything "anti-American" would seem like a positive thing in my eyes.

On-topic:
I agree with Stallman I guess, however, the GCC seriously needs to fix its infamous flaws, licences aside.

[prodigy_]

The moral of the story: if you create something for humanity, you must also accept it can be used for things you don't like.

No. Thanks to GPL we don't have to.

[peppepz]

Missing the point

RMS didn't say that LLVM isn't technically useful. He said that LLVM is worse than it could be from the point of view of free software, because it helps people leverage free software to build proprietary one which is out of people's reach. On the mailing list there are examples of that already happening. His goal is to promote free software, not to write a compiler. People can not share this goal, his affection for free software, or his contempt for proprietary software, but that's a completely different matter. And certainly they shouldn't be surprised by his words when he states the obvious.

[artivision]

Uh, what were you expecting in the comment section of an article on RMS commenting on GPL vs permissive licensed programs?



Last I checked, LLVM has nothing to do with virtual machines, apart from that you can build one with it.



Conspiravision?.

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.

[Truth]

RMS didn't say that LLVM isn't technically useful. He said that LLVM is worse than it could be from the point of view of free software, because it helps people leverage free software to build proprietary one which is out of people's reach. On the mailing list there are examples of that already happening. His goal is to promote free software, not to write a compiler. People can not share this goal, his affection for free software, or his contempt for proprietary software, but that's a completely different matter. And certainly they shouldn't be surprised by his words when he states the obvious.

George W Stallman does not have affection for free software, he would rather peddle his Patriot Act slavery to fools that do not know any better.

He is an enemy of freedom and a slavemaster.