Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[profoundWHALE]

It actually reminds me a lot of these two cats I knew. They were both sisters and actually got along really well.

Then the family got a male cat, which they ended up getting rid of cause it tried to pee on everything.

After that, they tolerated each other, but plop one in front of the other and they start going at it. But it's always been the one cat that starts the fights.

[techzilla]

Responce To Mark45's political nonsence

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.

Hey mark, Take your anti-leftism propaganda and shove it man.
If you want to call Linux and everything it means to us communism, then so be it, but seriously STFU.

Linux isn't great because its technically great, actually it's not technically superior at all when you compare it to more modern architectures. It's in the running sure, can replace a unix system better than unix, but that only explains why it's a practical choice. The reason it's great is because it's free, and there is NO question in my mind. If Linux was BSD licensed it would be another dying BSD system with many closed forks.

And BTW GPL doesn't control any end-users, which is what most of us are, and whom I believe code should benefit. Reciprocal licenses ensure that the developers can't close up previously opened code, you can agree or disagree, but don't insult leftism or the GPL.

[erendorn]

And BTW GPL doesn't control any end-users, which is what most of us are, and whom I believe code should benefit. Reciprocal licenses ensure that the developers can't close up previously opened code, you can agree or disagree, but don't insult leftism or the GPL.

FFS, you cannot close up previously opened code, neither in GPL nor in BSD.
The difference is, in GPL, developers cannot close their own contributions, in other words their own additional work.
OS X did not "close up" other BSD OS: they are still quite open.

(That said, comparing GPL to Stalinism was quite ridiculous)

[yogi_berra]

Please stop making it sound as if the GPL has restrictions on the usage of software, or is in someway a non-free licence.

The GPL tells me I can't license my additions to your software how I see fit. That is a restriction. That makes it free only if you redefine free to mean something other than free.

Redefining words was one of Eric Arthur Blair's key criticisms of Stalinism in 1984, do you really want to go there?

[aphirst]

The GPL tells me I can't license my additions to your software how I see fit. That is a restriction. That makes it free only if you redefine free to mean something other than free.

Redefining words was one of Eric Arthur Blair's key criticisms of Stalinism in 1984, do you really want to go there?

You're free to do anything with GPL software other than restrict the freedoms of anyone using your modifications to it; modifications you're only able to make and release at all because the original software gave the freedoms to inspect, modify and redistribute.

Why are people pretending that this is some sort of Orwellian dystopia where everyone's enslaved by fucking Richard Stallman, and where you have to record your DNA on a GPL database, and install GPL Compliance Chips in your spinal column? The GPL doesn't even permit any restriction other than the one saying you can't add further restrictions.

[mrugiero]

Redefining words was one of Eric Arthur Blair's key criticisms of Stalinism in 1984, do you really want to go there?

Why would anyone care about spying their own nation and killing opposition? There are more pressing matters, like semantics!

[Del_]

Hey mark, Take your anti-leftism propaganda and shove it man.
If you want to call Linux and everything it means to us communism, then so be it,

Actually, I belive that notion comes from Microsoft propaganda. In reality I believe everybody working with copy-left experience that is the other way around, GPL is if any anti-communistic. Remember the slogan used in communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_ea...ng_to_his_need

In reality GPL projects is more like "From each according to his need, to each according to his ability". The first is scratching your itch, the second is your ability to put GPL code to good use.

Funny to see that there are still some commy-phobes around, they should come to realise that communists is an endangered species these days

[yogi_berra]

The GPL doesn't even permit any restriction other than the one saying you can't add further restrictions.

You're an idiot. Not being able to use any license I want in my code is a restriction on me.

Keep redefining free, though. It's double-plus good.

[mrugiero]

You're an idiot. Not being able to use any license I want in my code is a restriction on me.

Keep redefining free, though. It's double-plus good.

Not being able to kill your neighbor is a restriction to you, but it is a requirement to give everyone the same amount of freedom. If they were to give you the freedom to kill your neighbor, there are only two possibilities:
1. They give this right to both of you, so the only one actually free to do whatever else you want is the one who gets to survive; or
2. They give this right only to you, effectively taking freedoms from your neighbor. Plainly, the freedom to breathe.

With this I don't try to say liberal licenses aren't free. I'm just pointing out that there are actually no way to define freedom in a consistent way that everyone agrees upon.
Also, free is not really defined, it depends on ideology. There's anarchism free, there's capitalism free, both of them are different, there's also communism free, democracy free.
Anarchism free is the total lack of restrictions. Of course, for anarchism freedom to be functional, you have to make some assumptions about human nature, like believing nobody will want to abuse others. Otherwise, as anarchy means nobody forces others to do their way, the moment one decides to abuse there's nobody to enforce that one stops. Capitalism freedom is mostly based in money, and I guess that they make an assumption that anybody is actually provided with enough (definition of "enough" may vary) opportunities to reach the top, so based on that logic, everyone is equally free, as having those "extra" freedoms depends only on their choices. Communism freedom is "we provide you with at least the minimum we consider indispensable to live, at the cost of some rights and that if you get far, you give a sizable amount of what you get to do, to give this chance to others; other than that and some practical restrictions for the system to work, you can do what you like" (I'm fully aware this was never the case IRL, but we are talking definitions, not facts; anyway, the definition doesn't comply with reality in anarchism and capitalism's cases either). Democracy freedom is more about specific decisions, I believe it's naturally divided in contexts which can follow or not a democratic way (you have democratic States, mostly, but you rarely see democratic companies inside them, for example; note that directors' boards aren't democracies, but aristocracies, or at most qualified democracies: being part of the company doesn't imply you get a say, but there are extra criteria, usually involving being a big investor), and it's kind of like "in the whole we are free to choose what to do, individually we have only the freedom to express our views, but whatever majority says is what will get done, and nothing else".
So, come on, define freedom for all of us.

[erendorn]

Not being able to kill your neighbor is a restriction to you, but it is a requirement to give everyone the same amount of freedom. If they were to give you the freedom to kill your neighbor, there are only two possibilities:
1. They give this right to both of you, so the only one actually free to do whatever else you want is the one who gets to survive; or
2. They give this right only to you, effectively taking freedoms from your neighbor. Plainly, the freedom to breathe.

With this I don't try to say liberal licenses aren't free. I'm just pointing out that there are actually no way to define freedom in a consistent way that everyone agrees upon.
Also, free is not really defined, it depends on ideology. There's anarchism free, there's capitalism free, both of them are different, there's also communism free, democracy free.
Anarchism free is the total lack of restrictions. Of course, for anarchism freedom to be functional, you have to make some assumptions about human nature, like believing nobody will want to abuse others. Otherwise, as anarchy means nobody forces others to do their way, the moment one decides to abuse there's nobody to enforce that one stops. Capitalism freedom is mostly based in money, and I guess that they make an assumption that anybody is actually provided with enough (definition of "enough" may vary) opportunities to reach the top, so based on that logic, everyone is equally free, as having those "extra" freedoms depends only on their choices. Communism freedom is "we provide you with at least the minimum we consider indispensable to live, at the cost of some rights and that if you get far, you give a sizable amount of what you get to do, to give this chance to others; other than that and some practical restrictions for the system to work, you can do what you like" (I'm fully aware this was never the case IRL, but we are talking definitions, not facts; anyway, the definition doesn't comply with reality in anarchism and capitalism's cases either). Democracy freedom is more about specific decisions, I believe it's naturally divided in contexts which can follow or not a democratic way (you have democratic States, mostly, but you rarely see democratic companies inside them, for example; note that directors' boards aren't democracies, but aristocracies, or at most qualified democracies: being part of the company doesn't imply you get a say, but there are extra criteria, usually involving being a big investor), and it's kind of like "in the whole we are free to choose what to do, individually we have only the freedom to express our views, but whatever majority says is what will get done, and nothing else".
So, come on, define freedom for all of us.

Come on, this is an awful analogy.
Let's make one better, between A and B (let me know if you disagree)
- There is a public good, non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
A) an open source project.
B) some infrastructure build by the state, like a road (note: it's a special road, using the road does not damage it, nor prevents others to use it at the same time).
- An individual uses the common good to make some new goods
A) some contributions to the project
B) Any business that requires roads
- Some regulation decides what you can do with the newly created goods
1) In the copyleft case
A) you must contribute back to the project
B) you must give all the goods to the state, which will make more roads for everyone
2) In the permissive case
A) you do as you want, keep it secret, or put burden of maintenance on upstream
B) you keep the goods if you want, pay the state on a voluntary basis. But you can pay to have more roads closer to you, as an incentive.
3) In the proprietary case
B) Just kidding, the road was private, you paid your goods beforehand to be allowed to use it .

Well in the real world, neither 1 (which is indeed the spirit of communism) nor 2 (which would be a non-profit, donation based state) actually work very well, and I would not tell that one is much better than the other (3 worked until we cut their heads :P). What happens in the real world is that you are taxed on a part of your revenue, which is hard to do on software Your best bet is to have software of both types coexisting, I guess.
Anyway, in this example, 1 provides less freedom than 2, but more equality. That's my view on copyleft vs permissive, but it's pretty much subjective.