Originally posted by mark45
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"
Collapse
X
-
This was clear in the message sent by ESR that he didn't care about freedom but about quality code.
The FSF cares about freedom, not about code and his confrontative spirit made them create a mandatory-open source license.
However, he was right when criticised the GCC decision of not accepting add ons. It should, and let the license protect it from private add-ons that don't respect the license.
This lincense predates privative work by itself, so you don't need to actually enforce it in the project choices. It should let third parties contribute code, and enforce the law when needed.
I'm not saying this because I'm pro RMS or anything like that. I just admit that RMS is a strong pillar of the free software movement and he's right about privative work predating the entire computing world. His stubborness makes him stand firmly, and let the "just open source" to exist happily in the middle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by frostwarrior View PostHowever, he was right when criticised the GCC decision of not accepting add ons. It should, and let the license protect it from private add-ons that don't respect the license.
Comment
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostA week of two ago Bradley Kuhn spoke in the same vein. He predicted that five years from now, not only will LLVM be the reigning compiler, but it will have major proprietary plugins you need to buy for some functionality.
"Let us take away your freedom or the terrorists will win!!111"
The GPL truly is a crime against humanity, Stallman should be put on trial.
Comment
-
Originally posted by artivision View PostWhen 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.
Comment
-
Paid plugins can and should be rejected
Originally posted by curaga View PostA week of two ago Bradley Kuhn spoke in the same vein. He predicted that five years from now, not only will LLVM be the reigning compiler, but it will have major proprietary plugins you need to buy for some functionality.
Lets put it this way: Suppose Nvidia wanted to charge people for their blob. Nvidia cards would hit parts piles and trash bins, and those with Nvidia laptops and not a lot of money would use Nouveau no matter the performance hit. Hell, I'd run straight vesafb before I would pay a dime for my laptop's video driver. Under those circumstances Nouveau development would accelerate, the blob would lose a hell of a lot of users, and few Linux users would buy discrete cards using Nvidia hardware.
Similarily, if there was a CPU, say an ARM CPU, that free compilers worked poorly with and for which you needed paid compiler plugins to get core functionality like power management to work, the result would be paid operating systems for that CPU getting a big advantage over free ones, or maybe an outright monopoly. You can buy something sort of like that today: An original (non-pro) Microsoft Surface tablet with Windows RT, complete with locked bootloader and OS locked to the MS store. There is NO way to replace the OS as of now, and it would take months of hacking to develop exploits just to allow sideloading unapproved software. Microsoft had huge numbers made-and few people bought them. As a result, most of that brand-new hardware will probably have to be scrapped.
Comment
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostA week of two ago Bradley Kuhn spoke in the same vein. He predicted that five years from now, not only will LLVM be the reigning compiler, but it will have major proprietary plugins you need to buy for some functionality.
- not in the current LLVM,
- not in GCC 5 year from now.
So what's the problem? What will you have lost? "Lost" is for something that you had, and have not anymore. Not something you wish you could have had.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mark45 View PostThat'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kano View PostBasicially he is right that everybody could reuse llvm and create a non-free compiler or whatever based on it. But i see no huge impact for the community here as usually the number of users is often pretty small compared to the parts which have been open sourced. As long as the interesting improvements are open for the community it is still fine.
If you only speak only about enforcing GPL to all users/companies of free software some most likely lost the interest even in using it.
The BSD licence is definitely more interesting for commericial use cases
Secure your software supply chain and identify dependencies with Synopsys software composition analysis. Take control of SCA security with our SCA Tools.
and yes I really need to say this strongly, because when even you haven't grasped the importance of this, many ideological believers in open development is bound to use BSD licenses without having a clue as to the dangers.
The most GPL violations found in the past was in router firmware. In many cases just busybox was used, that's a joke basically as more or less nobody changed that code anyway - mainly PR for gpl enforcemeant. I do not care for the right to enforce open source then the code gained is useless anyway.
To the contrary, the only participants in open source that seems to be truly successful are the ones that are crisp clear on their ideology. Red Hat and Debian are prime examples. Novell and soon Canonical are prime examples of what happens when you choose the more slippery slope.Last edited by Del_; 24 January 2014, 06:45 PM.
Comment
Comment