Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Building Linux With LLVM/Clang Excites The Embedded World

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    LOOOL so much irony in this post

    I though that GPL was about being "viral", and forcing "freedom" onto people?
    Technically speaking the GPL IS viral and IS a bit like a cancer-- one tiny little library that does something cool can force the GPL onto other projects if they use it. And once THAT project is under the GPL, any of ITS libraries are then under the gpl and it just keeps going UNLESS those libraries were already under a different license that is GPL compatible.

    The reality is the BSD style license "Here's code, I dont care what you do with it." is the MOST free license available, because it has zero restrictions or conditions or strings. But it does carry the danger of a company coming along, taking the code, making it better, and shipping a closed source program using that code without contributing anything back.

    And from that concern came the GPL-- "Here's code, do whatever you want with it, modify the crap out of it for all I care, but if you distribute a program to other people then you have to make it open source so that others can benefit." And that distribute part is key-- if a company takes a GPL library, modifies it, but keeps the modifications internally-- ergo they dont show it to the outside world and keep it within the company-- then they dont have to open source it.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Ericg View Post
      Technically speaking the GPL IS viral and IS a bit like a cancer-- one tiny little library that does something cool can force the GPL onto other projects if they use it.
      Perfectly fair to my taste: if you want to use someone's shared job results, share your own job results as well. Else you're clearly a parasite, sir: you want to consume something without giving anything back. So it's a viral cancer. It's a viral cancer which either kills nasty parasites or converts them to allied force. Quite a good cure for those who does not wants to have hundreds of parasites on them. You see, while BSDs are showing us how EPIC FAIL looks like, GPLed Linux managed to get strong. I can assume that what is bad for parasites is perfectly fine for COOPERATIVE people. And why someone should bother self about convenience of parasites? Sure, there is option to throw some stuff away and don't care if someone using it will commit anything back. However this resembles dumping of toxic waste when original owner no longer needs this hazardous substance. Most notably, Apache Software Foundation became most common place where proprietary corporations are dumping their toxic waste^W^W ahem, ex-proprietary projects they no longer need. But the most ironic is that even proprietary corps prefer Linux these days and utterly do not care aboud BSDs fate. Because Linux alows to earn $$$ and BSDs are troublesome at that. It's very amusing to see how ex-ally gives a boot to ex-ally just because business only values money$$$ and nothing else than that.

      Comment


      • #23
        I wasn't saying that the BSD license was better, don't misunderstand me. Companies have very legitimate concerns for the GPL-- if you have a programmer looking at GPL code, learns something new from that GPL code, and then uses that new idea (but not the exact code itself) in the companies product..does that qualfiy for the GPL's "Derived" clause? Maybe yes, maybe no, I dont think its ever been contested in court.

        Over all, I think most companies who contribute back to BSD do so either out of good will, quid-pro-quo ness, or maintenance burden. Because when you have a lot of out-of-tree patches it becomes a big deal to maintain them all on your own, its easier to push them back to usptream and then just let upstream maintain them for you.

        For the most part I think the best idea is to 'default' your license to LGPL (nice middle ground. The parts they took from YOU they have to keep open, including changes, but their own custom code can be whatever they want.)

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
          You see, while BSDs are showing us how EPIC FAIL looks like, GPLed Linux managed to get strong.
          Really? Where would Linux be without BSD (or the somewhat similar MIT) licensed software, like Xorg (or in the future Wayland) and many more?
          Don't be a hypocrite, remove those software from your Linux system and tell us again how strong your GPLed Linux is.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
            Perfectly fair to my taste: if you want to use someone's shared job results, share your own job results as well. Else you're clearly a parasite
            Perhaps I want to share my code under more liberal terms, or under another copyleft license like the CDDL or MPL 2.0.
            The problem with the GPL is that it's 'The GPL way', or no way at all, at the expense of other copyleft licenses.

            Also, your throw in about BSD systems and the Apache Foundation are unwarranted and unrelated.
            However, if you do want something to think about, Apache Openoffice has gotten 40 million downloads to date of version 3.4, not bad for 'toxic waste'

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by dee. View Post
              Nothing personal - I would bash any other patent troll just the same.
              When you grasp the concept of patent troll and actually get off your own ass and patent something people think is worth copying, I doubt you'd have uttered such nonsense.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                Also, your throw in about BSD systems and the Apache Foundation are unwarranted and unrelated.
                Unwarrented and unrelated maybe, but I have been noticing a trend...other than Apache itself, the Apache Foundation does seem to be getting a lot of "Well its a dead project but here's some code." donations. Harmony comes to mind.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                  They manage to perform amazing job granted that their hardware is a crap. AMD on other hand haves very good hardware and ... sucking drivers. Proprietary ones are just a bunch of troubles. Opensource ones are slow. And you see, guys managed to literally waste years working on drivers without real improvements on speed. When some external guy entered and improved FPS on Unigine demo to a degree LLVM backend can't even dream so far. Very-very quickly. Absolutely impressive demo on how efforts to results ratio could vary wildly, depending on people goals and management/judgement quality.
                  It is harder to write a good driver for AMD and Nvidia GPUs, because they are more complex. Also AMD and Nvidia release new series of GPUs every year so they have a lot more work. Nouveau devs are even doing it for free.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
                    When you grasp the concept of patent troll and actually get off your own ass and patent something people think is worth copying, I doubt you'd have uttered such nonsense.
                    I have a perfect grasp of the concept of patent troll, it's someone who weaponizes patents and uses them for profit and/or hurting their competition. Apple fits the bill like a rounded rectangle fits a rounded-rectangle-shaped hole.

                    Anyone who uses software patents agressively is a patent troll by definition, as software patents are an absurd idea that should never have been allowed at all and are only used for anti-competitive, unethical purposes. The entire patent system (in both US and EU) is broken, partly because they allow software patents, but for other reasons too.

                    If you still think patents protect innovation, you're either terminally naive or have swallowed the corporate propaganda of apple and its like. Patents do not protect innovation, they do nothing but uphold the status quo in favor of established corporations and actually harm innovation by creating unnecessary barriers to entry.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                      Really? Where would Linux be without BSD (or the somewhat similar MIT) licensed software, like Xorg (or in the future Wayland) and many more?
                      Don't be a hypocrite, remove those software from your Linux system and tell us again how strong your GPLed Linux is.
                      Oh, you see, these days something new is coming. It looks like if things are taking shape. So I can see how the kernel getting responsible for basic low-level GPU operations. Then there are DIFFERENT clients attaching to these interfaces. Xorg is about to be merely one of them and it looks like if there will be others. Mir. Wayland. And maybe more. The most important thing is kernel thing itself and these interfaces. They're basis for everything else on top. And the most ironic part is that BSD guys are outside of all this activity and/or hopelessly lagging. You see, they're only starting to make KMS interfaces and drivers. When Linux had all this for years. It has come as far as virtually nobody currently considers BSDs as anyhow usable desktop platform these days. AMD and Intel do not really support BSDs in open drivers. Nvidia insists on using their blob. Which is a kind of landmine as well: should nvidia ditch BSD support, you will have no chance for override. Good luck with that.

                      I'm finding it double-ironic that BSDs are in fact failing on desktops thanks to BSD-licensed software and vendors they were supposed to make happy. It has gone in really laughable ways. Nvidia has released blob-only drivers for ... Linux only. For their Tegra. Now what? BSDs are denied any chance on mobile hardware, thanks to vendor policy they supported. It's so funny to see how dumb nuts are getting their favorite policy applied to their very own butts. It's really gives a good laugh. In fact I think that most BSD supporters just completely lack foresight and unable to evaluate not so distant consequences of their own actions. Then it essentially turns out against them. I consider this approach "utterly stupid".

                      No, sure, I'm agree that sometimes BSD license is a good thing. For example it's nice for reference algo implementation if you want your data format to become widespread and value data format spread over code improvement. Sometimes it looks like a good deal. But it seems to perform awfully bad for OS as a whole.
                      Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 03-12-2013, 05:10 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X