Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[leech]

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). 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. 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. 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.

You do realize that both the PS4 and Xbox One use x86 processors, right?

[erendorn]

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.

No no no that's not what I'm saying. I did not say that proprietary projects would use GPL and still not release source. I said that the proprietary would just not use the GPL code at all, and would still be proprietary in the end (but the same code will have been written twice, which is a itself is a loss for society).

The comparison was like that:
If you can't pirate it, you will certainly still use it and so you will buy it <=> If you can't use the code legally in a proprietary project, you will certainly still use it, and so you will open source your project.

And, well, it does not work like that.

[corebob]

Stallman is wrong, he hates proprietary code and patents, the GPL states:

Where did proprietarty code came from in the first place?
What made people like you expect source code to be closed and hidden by default?

I mean, if I buy a car, its not like I cant open the hood and change the coil if I really want to

[discordian]

Where did proprietarty code came from in the first place?
What made people like you expect source code to be closed and hidden by default?

I mean, if I buy a car, its not like I cant open the hood and change the coil if I really want to

Nice analogy, if you compare that to GPL then you would expect the car to come with all schematics included and tools (including their schematics) freely available so you can build any and all parts of it.
And then you can imagine the mikado game of research - the first that invests loses

[profoundWHALE]

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

[Sonadow]

Where did proprietarty code came from in the first place?
What made people like you expect source code to be closed and hidden by default?

The very fact that I am not the one who conceptualized the program and wrote the code.

If the programmer wants to give it out, it's pure goodwill on his part. But locking it away is the developer's right to do so if he so desires.

I once wrote a hacky (and very poor quality, segfault-prone but workable) program using GTK3 that runs top in the background and pipes the output to a textfile until it's stopped by the user, and then splits the output into different textfiles based on the parameters selected in the interface to facilitate some logging for a task last year. I'm not obligated (and have no desire) to give away the source to my little application.

[nightmarex]

...., such as the complexity of the code base and the overall higher bar of entry.

Bar of entry, to the gcc project itself you mean?

[mark45]

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

Yes, BSD is more liberal, which means more freedom. GPL otoh is about controlling the user, telling it what to do, and forcing the user to share, this is pure socialism. Probably that's why Stallman refused to condemn Stalin and communism when asked about.

[erendorn]

but BSD/MIT is a one way license not making sure that the free code stays free.

Nope, the code under BSD will stay free, just as code under GPL. Only new contributions might be non free, but then, they might also not exist, which is worse than non free (that's not deniable: in both case you can't see the code, but in one case you can't even use the binary).

And the increasing (in absolute and in market share) amount of permissively licensed projects prove that they not only stay open source, but get contributions.

Either you recognize what a game changer GPL is, or you don't. Its that simple.
I'm with RMS on this one

Funny because I though LLVM was the game changer on this one

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

Well if someone claimed that a successful GPL program was a "set-back", I would consider them wrong all the same.
Even proprietary programs are better than nothing as long as they don't imper competition or prevent other solutions (EEE, lock-in, etc..).

[corebob]

Nice analogy, if you compare that to GPL then you would expect the car to come with all schematics included and tools (including their schematics) freely available so you can build any and all parts of it.
And then you can imagine the mikado game of research - the first that invests loses

The fact that I don't know what the product is, or that the parts are deliberately hidden from me, does not justify anything.

Your idea stems from a model that does not value the work behind the product.
If you can produce billions of pills to cure polio each day, can you really justify a $100 price tag?

I guess it boils down to the fact that I prefer the properties of a open flexible community over a closed and fixed one. Its a lifestyle kind of thing.

Of course, it doesn't get really ugly until ever lasting patents and lawyers enters the scene