Clang-Based Tool Makes It Easy To Show Inefficient Qt Coding Mistakes

[Sho_]

Mozilla did something similar to this based on gcc once: https://lwn.net/Articles/370717/

[starshipeleven]

I didn't put any politically load nonsense in my statements.

You were far too heavy-handed and that might have been read as "political nonsense".

Especially your stance on definitions of software freedom, really.

[coder]

https://lwn.net/Articles/629259/
GNU is to blame for making GCC less relevant.. The fear of proprietary software consumed Stallman and turned him to the dark side.

This is just sad. When you're driven to cripple software due to ideological concerns about license enforcement, then you've lost. This puts the GPL folks on the same level as DRM-using commercial software vendors, or worse.

[coder]

The thing people dont get with GPL and the Free Software Foundation is that your software isnt actually free.

In defense of GPL, I think there's some merit in restricting the freedom of downstream developers, in order to protect the freedoms of further downstream developers and end users. That's the basic idea of it.

In some cases, I'd agree this is truly important. Like, one might want this in voting machines and various critical infrastructure, so that there's always the possibility of repair, even if some intermediate party becomes defunct.

I don't begrudge anyone for releasing something as GPL or LGPL. I might not chose to use it, but they have just as much right to do that as they would have to sell it. Probably due to my commercial experience, I'm partial to MIT-style licenses. If I had only ever worked on open source, I might be more inclined to release stuff as GPL/LGPL.

Anyhow, I think it's more healthy to call out FSF on its excesses than to demonize them, completely. I think they made positive contributions to the development of the open source community, and their style of licenses do have a place in the world.

[starshipeleven]

This is just sad. When you're driven to cripple software due to ideological concerns about license enforcement, then you've lost. This puts the FSF folks on the same level as DRM-using commercial software vendors, or worse.

Clarified.

[coder]

Thanks, starship.

My earlier reply to this seems to have evaporated. I didn't see any notice of it awaiting moderation... it just seems not to have posted.

The thing people dont get with GPL and the Free Software Foundation is that your software isnt actually free.

A lot has been written on this, but the main point is that by restricting the freedoms of some downstream developers, you're protecting freedoms of further downstream developers and end users.

I think Copyleft-style licenses have an important place in the world. For instance, it's necessary to preserve servicability of things like voting machines and critical infrastructure components. There are probably other compelling use cases, too.

Given my commercial background, I'm partial to BSD and MIT-style licenses. But I think people have just as much right to use GPL/LGPL as they do to use commercial licenses and charge money for software.

If I wrote a really nifty library, I might say "here: you can use and extend this for free, but the price you pay is that if you add some enhancement, you need to share it." That's certainly one way of looking at Copyleft. You're giving something, but with strings attached that encourage collaboration in kind. Whether this is better or worse than typical terms of use associated with most commercial software really depends on your specific goals.

Anyway, I think it's far more constructive to call out the excesses of FSF, than to demonize GPL/Copyleft and all its users. I think it's important to try and stay pragmatic, and avoid getting too ideological. A license is merely a tool to achieve an end. As others have noted, Stallman's excesses have arisen mostly as a result of his shaping that tool to achieve an end that's far too grand.