RMS Feels There's "A Systematic Effort To Attack GNU Packages"

[phoronix]

Phoronix: RMS Feels There's "A Systematic Effort To Attack GNU Packages"

Richard Stallman has come out against support for basic LLVM debugger (LLDB) support within Emacs' Gud.el as he equates it to an attack on GNU packages...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Emacs-Gud-LLVM

[Akka]

Usually this sorts of stuff is in melpa or marmelade. Emacs has a lot of llvm plugins in this two package repositories.

[MoonMoon]

So much about "the GPL is here to give you freedom". The obvious answer to this would be to make GDB better, not to shut down LLDB support.

[duby229]

So much about "the GPL is here to give you freedom". The obvious answer to this would be to make GDB better, not to shut down LLDB support.

Agreed 100%. This is a tactic that comes straight out of MS book. Do whatever is necessary to make alternatives difficult.

[anarki]

"Dear" Richard! Have you ever considered in your ivory tower that if there's an alternative for any stuff under the GNU umbrella that's because the GNU version sucks ass? Or can it only be because of the attack of mutant space aliens? And you think if you put the GNU stamp on anything, it automagically and eternally becomes magnicifent and everyone's obliged to use (endure) it?

Also, WTF happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE which you propose sooooo arrogantly. Biggest hypocrisy ever.

Honestly, this guy's the worst that could've happened to the software world. All he did was some 0.1 versions and collaborations, and they all originate from the late 80s or early 90s. Ever since then, all he does is talk the SH*T out of people with this [email protected] Untalented, hypocritic, egomaniac jerk.

[c117152]

RMS has a good reason to be "frightened" of functionality getting implemented under other licenses and then patched through plugins. It's essentially the nVidia binary blob situation but in the compiler layer. One danger is that a piece of non-GNU code will negotiate closed source blobs. Another is that code under restrictive usage licenses (you can see the code and maybe even contribute to the project but you can't use it for yourself or maintain a fork) will patched through one of those plugin APIs.
And this isn't a theoretical concern: Apple and Sony keep a lot of LLVM work closed source or under non permissive licenses by using plugin interfaces. Intel is rumored to have a whole stack of compiler optimization they won't release.

So, yeah. It might not be the case with this particular patch (which is what's taking RMS time to make sure) but it's definitely happening and needs some verifying before approval.

[peppercats]

Classic paranoia symptoms, I wonder if RMS is slipping into dementia in his old age.

[Serafean]

First off, to everyone, please be civil, and stop insulting people...

Also, WTF happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE which you propose sooooo arrogantly. Biggest hypocrisy ever.

as @c117152 said it, and I'd expand a bit.
I don't think you understand what RMS is fighting for. It certainly isn't the freedom of choice. What he is fighting for is the right to see the code you're running, and to modify it. And for that right to be guaranteed. The BSD licence doesn't guarantee it, hence BSD-licenced code is dangerous. I sort of agree with him, that the GPL is under attack, and there is a push to go BSD, which allows vendors to take the code, and blob it down. You lose freedom of choice completely then.

Serafean

[anarki]

First off, to everyone, please be civil, and stop insulting people...

as @c117152 said it, and I'd expand a bit.
I don't think you understand what RMS is fighting for. It certainly isn't the freedom of choice. What he is fighting for is the right to see the code you're running, and to modify it. And for that right to be guaranteed. The BSD licence doesn't guarantee it, hence BSD-licenced code is dangerous. I sort of agree with him, that the GPL is under attack, and there is a push to go BSD, which allows vendors to take the code, and blob it down. You lose freedom of choice completely then.

Serafean

I don't get it. How the hell do you lose freedom of choice if anyone "blobs your code down"? You lose your own code in some magic way or what? Will anyone prevent you from working on it? Nope. This isn't called freedom, it's called greed, mate. You want the code for YOURSELF and sit on it anyone who touches it is to be enforced to help YOU. This isn't freedom in ANY way.

[pouar]

Even though I can see and understand why RMS would be scared considering how much LLVM work by companies is kept proprietary, I don't think that this is an attack on GNU packages in this particular case. I think adding LLDB support to EMACS is a good idea.