Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[Sonadow]

I don't*mind Microsoft doing things their own way, I'm just glad someone found a model that can survive without big brothers thumbs up.

Says you.

The overwhelming majority of Microsoft / proprietary haters that want all such companies destroyed and eliminated says otherwise.

Major disclaimer (for those who don't already know): I'm pro-Microsoft and pro-proprietary with concessions for varying degrees of opensource depending on the situation. And above all, pro-practicality / pragmatism.

[corebob]

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.

Just as a side note: One of my later findings is that despite popular belief, a free market and capitalism seems to be mutually exclusive.
You probably have to choose one over the other at some point down the road.

[brosis]

Sure, you can keep BSD-Style code for yourself, improve upon it and keep that to yourself - or give it back which might be a good thing for both sides and is happening alot.

Since one is not obligated per law to submit the source modifications back, all your claims are nothing, but a marijuana.

Sharing in both ways works so good with LLVM that apparently we need to be reminded on how "evil" it is.

LLVM is a tool.
Tools are not interesting for the end-users, only for engineers.
Sharing does not work good bothways: proprietary developers can take the open code, open source developers cant take proprietary code.
Proprietary developers are not obligated to publish modifications to taken open code.
In this situation, open source developers simply cant concurrent with proprietary developers.
It is only a question of time, till all developers switch to proprietary development AND will keep open source contribution purely as a hobby.

Do you know what happens if you send some code to a GNU project? You have to give up your copyright to get it included. Means you could work on your spare time on code, send it to GNU and then having to open all your projects that might contain parts of it.

No shit, Sherlock. Exactly this does not happen.
As a copyright owner, you keep copyright to your work in all cases. You don?t loose it. You are not obligated to open(oh horror, GNU will strip me alive!) anything.
They ask copyright assignment because they need to enforce the conditions in GPL license. There is no point in license, if its not enforced. Read

And if you are lucky GNU will change the license to something entirely different since they have any right to do so.

And they sure have changed licenses in the past to something entirely different, completely blowing their mission a long the way in all countries they exist.
Yeah. Quit smoking crack.

But hey, that wouldnt happen because they are not evil while all companies are!

Companies exist to make money.
Foundations exist to implement their policy.
FSF is corporation?

I been with GPL as hobbiest for a while until I actually thought about it. And while I understand the motivation and use behind it, I understand aswell that you dont want to share everything immediatly so that everyone can rip off the good parts, integrate it rather badly and just use some cheap advertising tricks to get all the attention.

Hobbyist? FSF are hobbyists too? Wow. They do it professionally, so should you. In case of emergency consider reading the whole FAQs they have on their site, their mission and their license.

If you don?t want to share everything immediately, you can lock it up in a chest on the sea ground like a true pirate. It will definitely do better for humanity then for them to deal with your ego. You don?t GPL everything like crazy and feel abused, only stuff what you don?t mind sharing - this is Public License after all, not EULA.

And Im not even talking about commercial software, but free tools.

Commercial software is opposite to non-commercial software. It is about for what reason a publishing entity exists.
Free libre software is opposite to proprietary software. It is about what rights users and developer have.
Free to get software is opposite to payware. And this is about what freedoms do user have regarding the distribution of the software.

There can be commerical free-libre free-to-get software (firefox, Mozilla corp.), a non-commerical proprietary free-to-get software (freeware from hobbyist) and so on.

This is about software. This is not even touching the software development model - FLOSS, Opencore, full proprietary, etc.

GPL makes sense if you can sell services,

They why did they invent AGPL?
GPL makes sense if you want to get paid for work, not for exclusive right over producing copies AND you don?t want others to earn money from selling copies exclusively, with your work.
In broader term, GPL makes sense if you care about four freedoms equally applied to you and your customers.

BSD makes sense if you sell products and dont want rippofs immediatly, are hobbiest which just wants to fucking share stuff with no strings attached, or even for companies which want to collaborate.

No, BSD makes sense only for OpenCore, for publishing widely compatible interfaces and protocols, and for those who don?t care about license at all.

There can and will always be abuse, be it companies just taking stuff and not giving anything back (well.. they just arent required to), companies just scrambling stole GPL code, people selling opensource for ludicrous prices, and GPL ideologist taking stuff from BSD software not giving anything back and even bickering about it.

BSD is designed for giving back to be completely optional. There is no such thing as "stealing code" within BSD ideology.
On contrary, GPL is designed to uphold the four freedoms mentioned in its preamble, it was always true to it and FSF has enough legal force to uphold the license.
BSD doesn?t bother about it, at all. Show me single the case of legal action due to BSD license.

[discordian]

So did GNU. Only GNU came first and as a response to a world without free software. BSD is a later invention by people who wrongfully believe free software would exist if developers and academia hadnt' stood up and created it using GPL. Ask yourself how would the BSDs ever have been possible with GCC?

Depends on what you view as "free" software you apparently think of free as in GPL in which case this a tautologie anyway. Free software always existed, both in open and closed source form. In fact until the mid 90's the biggest software archive (Aminet) barely had GPL or BSD software, but alot of sources just marked as "public domain".

First off, you are discussing a whole different thing than Stallman. You are talking practicality, he talks ethics. You two would never get to agree because you are not talking about the same subject, I wanted to point that out. Now, on practicality, BSD doesn't help you at all if you don't want fast ripoffs, proprietary is the one helping you there. Even GPL is more helpful there than BSD, as it takes out of the picture most of the big companies, who work in the closed. Maybe you mean basing your work on GPL or BSD, in which case I agree.

Yeah I meant tapping into BSD software and the validity of it. And its not about "ethics" unless you talk about these kinda things that cause massmurders because of skin-color or believe in the wrong invisible man in the sky, and that just kinda described my picture of RS (Its not about threats, its about unfounded ideologies).
I wouldnt even try talking to him, but I can argument against him.

[Truth]

Advice taken, and ignored.

And here we have the Dick Cheney, the minion set forth by the slave masters who care nothing for freedom - only their own power.

You are a criminal. Embrace freedom and abandon George W Stallman's Patriot Act.

[Truth]

If it hadn't been for the GPL licenses there is no reason to believe most of the fropen source projects would exist.

If you can make a project that Microsoft's CEO calls "Growing like a cancer" and still can't destroy, you know you did something clever.

I don't*mind Microsoft doing things their own way, I'm just glad someone found a model that can survive without big brothers thumbs up.

Like the United States government told us the wars in Iraq and Afganistan were "needed" no less.

The GNU Patriot Act was never needed.

[mark45]

Just as a side note: One of my later findings is that despite popular belief, a free market and capitalism seems to be mutually exclusive.
You probably have to choose one over the other at some point down the road.

Do you mean America either doesn't have a free market or isn't capitalist?

[profoundWHALE]

Can we all agree that BSD offers more 'freedom' while GPL offers more 'free software'?
BSD allows people the freedom to build off of an existing piece of software and then sell it, yes. This means that any modifications don't have to be shared which is nice for people trying to make a living.
GPL allows people the freedom of always being able to see and fork the crap out of the source code. This means that any modifications to the source code is public to everyone and the improvements can be shared.

Unfortunately there are downsides to both.
BSD's freedom includes the freedom to be a butthead and essentially take another person's work and effort and turn it into their own personal gain.
GPL's lack of the previous freedom means that many companies will not back a project, because they don't like putting their money into something that their competitor could use too.

[russofris]

Re: "bickering and fighting"

I assure you that the only bickering and fighting going on is in your imagination. Two distinct/disparate philosophies can and do coexist, and people are free to choose whichever suits them (or their company) the best. LLVM is a terrible setback to the promotion of the RS's notion of 'software freedom'. It is a step forward in the eyes of technologists like myself. That said, it is essential that GCC exists and continues to thrive. Not only does GCC provide the necessary compilation tools to anyone/everyone, it also serves as a public record of the state of compiler technology.

GCC must exist for the same reason the Post Office and public Libraries must exist. LLVM/icc are just the FEDEX/UPS.... The JSTOR/PACER of the compiler world, and serves their customers better than the free alternatives.

Having both is a good thing, as it fosters competition and innovation.

[corebob]

Like the United States government told us the wars in Iraq and Afganistan were "needed" no less.

The GNU Patriot Act was never needed.

It's needed if you want to prevent leaching of your work.
It's also needed in order to prevent big brother from putting poison in your pudding behind your back.