Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by e8hffff View Post
    If the core of LLVM remains open and free, is that enough?
    It is to consider it free software. It is not for the objective of defeating proprietary software, which you may or may not share. The reasons are well explained in Stallman's email.

    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"
    Agenda? "Now" becomes clear? You really lack reading skills if you realize just now Stallman doesn't like when the community does work usable by proprietary software. He never tried to hide it. Why do you think the GPL even exists? You should remember the FSF represents a moral, and that moral is that you must give back, therefore copyleft is better (according to that moral, of course).
    Also, they do want to help others. They don't want to help proprietary software. Stallman is very clear in this. It's alright if you want to help anyone and everyone, but seriously, criticizing that about copyleft licenses while backing the ones who tell "yeah, if you want, you can give nothing back" is kind of silly. You are backing people who say "hey, give us the code without restrictions, but you're not getting your hands on OUR code because we don't wont to help others", as you agree to help them. Major hypocrisy, methinks.

    Originally posted by YaPeL View Post
    i love how bias against RMS Michale is, R;S never spoke against the technical advantages of LLVM, but agains the consequences of using a license that would allow non free code, guess ABE is on again.
    I don't see your point. The title says something that was actually said. I do see a connotation at the end of the article that somehow the technical benefits should outweigh how worse the license is (in the views of RMS, of course), when RMS explicitly states it will never be that way because it's about ethics, and not about code quality for him, but it was never implied RMS talked against any technical advantages.

    Originally posted by shaurz View Post
    LLVM came from academia (like the BSDs) and not created for the benefit of some political ideology.
    Exactly, and that's what RMS criticizes. He has an ethical view of code incompatible with this, and spokes about it to inform people who share his views. Is there anything wrong in that?

    Originally posted by stikonas View Post
    I agree with Stallman too. But this might be a reminder to improve GCC further because now there is a competition.
    I don't know if I agree, but his logic is really consistent, so if you share similar ethics as the ones he has, you should probably back him this time.

    Comment


    • #12
      Stallman is right

      I agree with Stallman on this one. In times like this when our freedoms and rights are being taken away it is more and more important that we do everything to protect our freedoms and rights and GPL does this while BSD doesn't.

      Comment


      • #13
        What's the problem in using GPLv3 licensing model? Why LLVM can't use this and yet be innovative?

        I invite llvm plugin developers too joning us and using GPLv3.

        Obs.: I'm not forcing anyone on this, it's a matter of choice, if you prefer strengthen proprietary it's up to you

        Comment


        • #14
          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"
          Only now? This has been Stallman's public agenda for the past 30 years...

          Comment


          • #15
            Basicially 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 and i see nothing bad with that. 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 enforcement. I do not care for the right to enforce open source then the code gained is useless anyway.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by erendorn View Post
              So many misconceptions.. A non free program using permissive code would not necessarily have been open source had the code been copylefted, just as piracy does not equate to lost sales...
              It's not a misconception. He assumes we live within legal systems that allow enforcement of copyright. It's your responsibility to try to enforce it, just the way companies could enforce theirs with pirates. It's the impracticality of doing so with common users which stops them.

              If he prefers "no code" than "proprietary code", then I don't want his "freedom".
              You are free to disagree. That's how freedom works.

              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 (i speak for hardware and software).
              It is true that he has a limited vision for the word freedom, because he has a defined ethic to define the word. However, Stallman is not wrong, he just limits himself to his set of ethics, which is perfectly reasonable. A closed program that runs on all platforms is not at all free, according to that set of ethics, so it's hardly any freer than an open one that only runs on paper. You can't change how someone else uses a word and expect his claims to keep consistent, that's not how arguments work.

              In our case GCC did take the Intel road for statically linking compilation as MS compilers did. So they benefit mostly Intel and x86 monopoly and Instruction_set based computing, and they stall technology. We have the same computing for 40 years.
              So, GCC doesn't build for ARM, MIPS, SPARC and I don't know how many other architectures? It's great to know.

              I prefer a BSD LLVM because i am thinking than if consoles like PS4 use it, and some graphic engines use it as well, there is a huge change to get rid of x86 processors, in favor of better processors or free processors and easy emulation.
              You can use GCC pretty much anywhere you can use LLVM, as long as it's the same language. They try to be compatible, AFAIR.

              I don't understand something: What is the importance to have something free (copy left), that doesn't work or can't be used with a new vision of what is beneficial for as in our time.
              It's a matter of ethics, not practicality. If you don't set your mind to that idea, you will never understand the way RMS sees the world. This doesn't mean you are forced to agree with him, though. Please don't think I'm trying for you to share his views, but if you want to understand those views, you will have to consider constantly he puts his ethics above anything else, including practicality.

              Comment


              • #17
                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 ."
                He's been saying the exact same thing for 30 years.

                If it took you until NOW for it to become clear, then you're not particularly bright.

                Comment


                • #18
                  So you're telling me that RMS is taking an idealistic stance that precludes a more pragmatic approach? Yawn...
                  Give me some real news; not something that's been occurring for 30 years.

                  Maybe RMS should address more pressing issues with gcc which make it less appealing to newer contributors than llvm, such as the complexity of the code base and the overall higher bar of entry.

                  EDIT: I was typing while the previous poster was. We both came up with the "30 years" thing at the same time. I guess it's that painfully obvious...

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Kano View Post
                    Basicially 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 and i see nothing bad with that. 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 enforcement. I do not care for the right to enforce open source then the code gained is useless anyway.
                    You are mostly right, but:
                    - Remember he sees it as a matter of ethics, so enforcement is not to "gain useful code" but because "it's the right thing";
                    - The ones who lost interest are the ones who don't want to give the code back, so they probably pose no benefit to free software anyway.

                    This two things lead to the obvious conclusion that, according to those ethics which you are free to agree or disagree with, you don't have to care about how many users you lose because of using a copyleft license.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      It's not a misconception. He assumes we live within legal systems that allow enforcement of copyright. It's your responsibility to try to enforce it, just the way companies could enforce theirs with pirates. It's the impracticality of doing so with common users which stops them.


                      You are free to disagree. That's how freedom works.


                      It is true that he has a limited vision for the word freedom, because he has a defined ethic to define the word. However, Stallman is not wrong, he just limits himself to his set of ethics, which is perfectly reasonable. A closed program that runs on all platforms is not at all free, according to that set of ethics, so it's hardly any freer than an open one that only runs on paper. You can't change how someone else uses a word and expect his claims to keep consistent, that's not how arguments work.


                      So, GCC doesn't build for ARM, MIPS, SPARC and I don't know how many other architectures? It's great to know.


                      You can use GCC pretty much anywhere you can use LLVM, as long as it's the same language. They try to be compatible, AFAIR.


                      It's a matter of ethics, not practicality. If you don't set your mind to that idea, you will never understand the way RMS sees the world. This doesn't mean you are forced to agree with him, though. Please don't think I'm trying for you to share his views, but if you want to understand those views, you will have to consider constantly he puts his ethics above anything else, including practicality.


                      No, you are completely wrong to this one. If someone use something like GCC to compile a graphics engine for example, he can do it only for x86 and we cannot do anything about that, just because he can. LLVM doesn't allow that. And sources will become better if they programmed and optimized for virtualization class computing. My opinion is that we don't have the right to punish the thief politician, but we have the obligation to create a system that he can't do it or he doesn't need to.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X