Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Clang 14 Lands An "Amazing" Performance Optimization

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    I am making a distinguishment between companies (i.e. Redhat) and organizations/communities (i.e. Linux).
    Nah, I'm not going down this rabbit hole, I'm done with the what is "is" debate for today.

    Comment


    • #22
      Every type of company beside the large multinational titans prefer the GPL over MIT/Apache/etc as they can be sure that no matter who benefits from the money they invested in GPL code, they themself will always benefit back from it.

      The GPL does not just give freedom, it protects freedom for everyone, so that your code is a gift that keeps on giving.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by cl333r View Post
        a) if you want to be taken seriously write less blabber.
        b) bother not skipping words like "tend"
        c) Your example doesn't prove or disprove what I said because of b)
        I did not skip the word tend. Winehq is a good example with the well written public history of getting burnt.

        open source from the start<< Libreoffice today first started as closed source star office.
        https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
        That appears in the world as LGPL license from sun. Progresses to Apache license and MPL license. Yes the apache license openoffice end up burn by the copyleft license libreoffice and the fact that the companies taking and using the apache license openoffice don't end up giving back. Openoffice use to get a lot of submitted code when they were LGPL license.

        They tend to a copyleft license not GPL in general. Also depend on the companies business dealing and how they have been burnt with licensing a company that has never released open source before might decide to go straight up copyleft.

        The major deciding force is how much a company has been burnt by morally inferior companies not that they are long term open source companies.

        There are example after example here. There is a tendency to copyleft licenses. Lot of market its only the copyleft licensed open source projects that remain with healthy development.

        cl333r companies like redhat that don't have fixed tend direct is very common in the open source world. The choice between copyleft and non copyleft licensing with the majority of long term open source supporting companies is more based on the market the open source project will be going into.

        Linux graphics drivers in the kernel lot of people would think are GPLv2 when in reality they are MIT license because for that market this makes more sense so the code can be shared with freebsd and others.

        cl333r long term open source companies are not black or white on licensing lots of shades of grey with license selection based on market/users/competition.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
          The GPL does not just give freedom, it protects freedom for everyone, so that your code is a gift that keeps on giving.
          This!

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses

            What are you attempting to be a joke. OpenOffice under Apache 2.0 vs LibreOffice under Mozilla Public License you should have a serous look at. Yes Mozilla Public License is a copyleft license. Yes libreoffice has end up as the higher quality code and more paid full time developers.
            I find it hard to imagine a more irrelevant example of one type of license being superior than another, than LibreOffice (LO) vs Apache OpenOffice (AOO). It has everything to do with the history how those projects came into being and more or less absolutely nothing to do with the license. LO started out essentially as a bunch of community-supported patches on top of Sun OpenOffice to make it work better on then current Linux distros, eventually for all practical matters growing into the "real" upstream. AOO was never more than a dump over the wall by Oracle since they weren't interested in OO anymore. Why should a community have formed around that one, considering that anyone interested in any kind of OpenOffice community had already congregated around LO?

            In reality, there are plenty of examples of very successful copyleft and very successful permissively licensed projects. It's as if the choice of license isn't as centrally important as internet forum warriors make it out to be, imagine that..

            Legal departments in many companies are more willing to sign off for their staff working on copyleft projects sharing their work out side the company than BSD or Apache ones.
            Interesting, that hasn't really been my experience or for other people contributing to open source on company time I've read about.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by caligula View Post

              The license is non-copyleft (BSD and Apache), which is morally superior, at least.
              Non-copyleft licenses are for cuckolds and cowards.

              Comment


              • #27
                Licenses and other detours aside, for any modern compiler to receive runtime improvements, in a single patchset, sized ~3-12%, is big. Atleast I am amazed! Kudos to Djordje.
                In his benchmark, even asmfish improves (even though it is mostly assembly). Coremark is the odd one out. Wonder what that is about.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                  There are exceptions even wrt to Redhat, i.e. pipewire (the new audio/video stack being developed there) is MIT licensed https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire
                  now that pipewire is required for screen capture and audio on Linux, if it was GPL it would force nearly all applications on GNU+Linux to be GPL. even firefox is GPL incompatible. libraries like that pretty much have to be MIT, same as Wayland and X.Org.
                  Last edited by novideo; 07 December 2021, 10:57 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by jabl View Post
                    Interesting, that hasn't really been my experience or for other people contributing to open source on company time I've read about.
                    It does depend who you talk to. Allwinner case to get driver source code and many others. There are quite a few companies where you end up depending on the copyleft license to in fact get the company to release their source code and to consider working with other parties.

                    jabl not all companies are created equal. There are a lot of morally inferior companies who have gag orders on their staff. Yes its like with wine you could talk to the wine developers and the staff at codeweavers and it was all nice stories. Then you had the TransGaming fork of wine where you could not talk to their developers and they were not submitting upstream and got really upset when wine main project changed to lgpl where they could not keep on adding on their custom only code in secret. Seeing this was when I came aware how these companies work yes the morally inferior are more likely to legally gag their workers.

                    The markets where you are needing copyleft because of morally inferior companies you don't hear many stories about. Not that they don't exist contractually if their developers want to keep their job they cannot talk about how their company treats open source submits.

                    jabl there is a dark underside that we should not ignore. Looking at the normally morally superior companies stories is less than 1/4 of the developers in fact working with open source code.

                    Yes there is a problem where people start saying that people should not use copyleft while completely ignoring they are in a market where copyleft is kind of a require feature.

                    Another place you see it is the amount of hardware support the Linux kernel has vs freebsd. Linux kernel has more because there are a lot parties up-streaming code who would not without the gplv2 requirements. Yes there are a lot of hardware companies who want to be morally questionable. There are also some who are morally superior in hardware companies as well.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by novideo View Post
                      now that pipewire is becoming required for screen capture and audio on Linux, if it was GPL it would force nearly all applications on GNU+Linux to be GPL. even firefox is GPL incompatible. libraries like that pretty much have to be MIT, same as Wayland and X.Org.
                      Not all copyleft licenses are as nasty. LGPL and MPL in the copylefts in majority of cases would work. Pure GPL is not meant to be used in applications in most cases. GPLv2 with the Linux kernel has the Linus exception that limits it reach.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X