Slashdot Mirror

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

The FSF's comments on the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) are informative here. HESSLA:

tries to put restrictions of ethical conduct on use and modification of the software. Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license. The ironic result is that the community of people most likely to feel sympathy for the goals of the HESSLA cannot contribute to HESSLA-covered software without violating its principles.

This issue apparently comes up often enough and is important enough where the FSF has published an essay on why programs must not limit the freedom to run them which is also linked to the aforementioned HESSLA commentary.

Considering the FSF's document pointed to above dates back multiple years, I'd say RMS has long answered your question.

The FSF's comments on the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) are informative here. HESSLA:

tries to put restrictions of ethical conduct on use and modification of the software. Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license. The ironic result is that the community of people most likely to feel sympathy for the goals of the HESSLA cannot contribute to HESSLA-covered software without violating its principles.

This issue apparently comes up often enough and is important enough where the FSF has published an essay on why programs must not limit the freedom to run them which is also linked to the aforementioned HESSLA commentary.

Considering the FSF's document pointed to above dates back multiple years, I'd say RMS has long answered your question.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.

For example, Section 2 of the GNU GPL version 3 does what it can to clearly prohibits proprietarization: (emphasis mine)

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.

Section 3 of the GNU GPL version 3 prevents conveyers from exercising legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").

Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.

The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.

For example, Section 2 of the GNU GPL version 3 does what it can to clearly prohibits proprietarization: (emphasis mine)

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.

Section 3 of the GNU GPL version 3 prevents conveyers from exercising legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").

Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.

The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.

For example, Section 2 of the GNU GPL version 3 does what it can to clearly prohibits proprietarization: (emphasis mine)

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.

Section 3 of the GNU GPL version 3 prevents conveyers from exercising legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").

Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.

The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.

For example, Section 2 of the GNU GPL version 3 does what it can to clearly prohibits proprietarization: (emphasis mine)

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.

Section 3 of the GNU GPL version 3 prevents conveyers from exercising legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").

Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.

The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.

For example, Section 2 of the GNU GPL version 3 does what it can to clearly prohibits proprietarization: (emphasis mine)

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.

Section 3 of the GNU GPL version 3 prevents conveyers from exercising legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").

Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.

The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.

Stallman has already advocated coercion: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

I have always wondered about the large logical disconnect in the copyleft argument. My understanding is that the GNU GPL has always been touted as "Guaranteeing Your Freedom(TM)", yet there are blog posts explaining that the purpose of the GPL is to force others to provide their software under GPL terms.

My issue is thus: How do you reconcile that "Freedom" means "Forcing everyone to give everyone else free access to the products of their labor"? I feel that the overreaching goals, as expressed, are for "Free Software" to gain such a critical mass that it is impossible to provide "Software" without a prohibitive amount of effort, unless you provide that software under the specific licensing terms everyone else has forced upon you. In other words: the final goal is that I may not provide my software as a closed-source, licensed, non-GPL binary unless I write an entire operating system and supporting libraries, as all supporting libraries are GPL and force me to GPL my code or not produce code at all.

Is that not the opposite of freedom? That is, are you not technically free to write your own Microsoft Windows, since Microsoft will not give it to you; and in the same way, in the ideal GNU world, you are technically free to write your own Readline and LIBC and Libgtk and QT and audio libraries and small linker bits and compiler tool chain, since using any of the existing means using GPL software and releasing your software under GPL in turn?

No.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Next question please.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

Any more questions?
Or was your question retorical?
Because surely we can ask Mr. Stallman questions that are more interesting than just the same stuff he's been asked for decades now.

The Right to Read by Richard Stallman

The important question remains: how are the users treated? If the software respects a user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, users are treated well. If these freedoms are not respected, the user is subjugated.

That is just your subjective opinion and given that users are not "subjugated" - because that is just a gross over-exaggeration - your opinion has little value, users are not under "complete control", that is just FUD and you know it. Try presenting your argument in a more balanced way. The reason people often (but not always) choose proprietary software is that choosing to not exercise a particular freedom for a period of time in the context of using a particular product (sometimes even just a particular feature of that product) is more beneficial to them than using an inferior product (I am not saying free software as a whole is inferior but if a non-free product is functionally superior users will choose that) and having that freedom in that context at that time that they do not want/need anyway.

People would rather have a product that works well and does not offer them the freedom to change it than a product that does not work well and offers them the freedom to fix it themselves. You do not need to pontificate about software freedom, if the software is good enough then people will use it, if not then your product is obviously not good enough.

This is an ethical issue with technical ramifications.

Ethics are subjective and if people do not see things from your point of view (and demonstrably most do not) then arguing ethics is obviously pointless.

A free software system (such as a GNU/Linux system on which nothing but free software is installed) can be fully inspected, shared, and modified by the users.

The benefit for most end users there is very little because the systems are so complex that even the original architects and key developers often do not fully understand them much less end users with no development experience at all, this is why the vast majority of people do not choose systems based on whether it is open or not. We have seen privilege escalation bugs exist in both free Linux and non-free Windows for over a decade before being fixed for example.

Free software lets users treat each other ethically, non-free software leaves even the most expert users who are willing to do technical inspection/bugfixing work in the dark and prevents them from sharing with others, thus preventing them from helping others.

Use of non-free software does not preclude your ability to help others, that is just more FUD.

Software freedom is a far better arrangement for the user.

In theory yes I agree but in practice it is a lot less so.

One can choose to learn to program and fix bugs themselves

And therein lies the problem. End users want a tool to do a job, they do not want to develop and repair it themselves.

one can get someone else to fix software for them (even commercially, by hiring someone trustworthy and appropriate just as one would do to fix other things).

How much is a person expected to pay for this? And while you correctly point out that with non-free software a patch could "possibly introducing new problems and leaving other known problems unfixed" you fail to mention this is exactly the same with patching free software, so more biased arguments.

All of these supposed benefits could be realized now, there is nothing stopping you from building free software that is better than proprietary software and that is what will win over users. Pontificating about software freedom will not win people over even if you think it should, just as proprietary vendors need to unseat the incumbents with products that are significantly better so does free software.

Any complex software has bugs and perfection is never available. The important question remains: how are the users treated? If the software respects a user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, users are treated well. If these freedoms are not respected, the user is subjugated. This is an ethical issue with technical ramifications.

Non-free programs (such as Microsoft Windows and Apple's OSes) are designed and licensed to prohibit anyone but the proprietor from understanding how the software works. Nobody but the proprietor can fix bugs or improve the program (I use the word "improve" purposefully subjectively here). And the proprietor could have included a variety of other problems (from the user's perspective) because proprietary software is often malware. A free software system (such as a GNU/Linux system on which nothing but free software is installed) can be fully inspected, shared, and modified by the users. Free software lets users treat each other ethically, non-free software leaves even the most expert users who are willing to do technical inspection/bugfixing work in the dark and prevents them from sharing with others, thus preventing them from helping others.

Software freedom is a far better arrangement for the user. Where non-free software users have to wait for a proprietary binary to patch a problem (possibly introducing new problems and leaving other known problems unfixed such as Apple did for over 3 years with an exploitable iTunes bug during which time governments used the hole to invade people's computers), a free software user has additional options. One can choose to learn to program and fix bugs themselves, one can get someone else to fix software for them (even commercially, by hiring someone trustworthy and appropriate just as one would do to fix other things). No one person can understand all the software they need, there's way too much software to do that. But together we can (and do!) maintain free software systems very well.

Any complex software has bugs and perfection is never available. The important question remains: how are the users treated? If the software respects a user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, users are treated well. If these freedoms are not respected, the user is subjugated. This is an ethical issue with technical ramifications.

Non-free programs (such as Microsoft Windows and Apple's OSes) are designed and licensed to prohibit anyone but the proprietor from understanding how the software works. Nobody but the proprietor can fix bugs or improve the program (I use the word "improve" purposefully subjectively here). And the proprietor could have included a variety of other problems (from the user's perspective) because proprietary software is often malware. A free software system (such as a GNU/Linux system on which nothing but free software is installed) can be fully inspected, shared, and modified by the users. Free software lets users treat each other ethically, non-free software leaves even the most expert users who are willing to do technical inspection/bugfixing work in the dark and prevents them from sharing with others, thus preventing them from helping others.

Software freedom is a far better arrangement for the user. Where non-free software users have to wait for a proprietary binary to patch a problem (possibly introducing new problems and leaving other known problems unfixed such as Apple did for over 3 years with an exploitable iTunes bug during which time governments used the hole to invade people's computers), a free software user has additional options. One can choose to learn to program and fix bugs themselves, one can get someone else to fix software for them (even commercially, by hiring someone trustworthy and appropriate just as one would do to fix other things). No one person can understand all the software they need, there's way too much software to do that. But together we can (and do!) maintain free software systems very well.

The 8 kernel is so improved it runs on mediocre Nokia phones with qualcom 1.5 ghz cpus

Are you mad? Can you find an OS kernel which can't run on a machine with those kinds of resources? Is this some sort of strange excuse for something? The old XP kernel ran fine on much less.

- Word finally doesn't botch formatting nearly as much and excel has hardly any bugs

Haha this one is funny. It's still crap but not as crap. Brilliant!

MS goes for the more open ooxml.

You mean the one where the pwn3d the ISO by stacking the relevant committee with members who were active only for the ooxml vote and nothing else ever again?

They got that wretched "standard" (which they still don't support properly) through by foul means, and it shows.

VS 2013 C++ is ahead of GNU with support.

Impressive! MS are now so good that they beat 100%!

You're beginning to sound like a shill. GCC had C++11 nailed first. CLang was next. VS is still far behind.

Let's go to the source:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog...

You see all those "no" entries? That's where VS2013 does not implement a feature.

You see all those yes entries:

http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cx...

That's where GCC does.

Ad for 14, VS2013 hsa not a single feature, GCC has over half of them. GCC also has a branch maybe supporting the C++17 concepts-lite.

The -Wunreachable-code has been removed, because it was unstable: it relied on the optimizer, and so different versions of gcc would warn about different code. The compiler still accepts and ignores the command line option so that existing Makefiles are not broken. In some future release the option will be removed entirely.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help...

It's there if you need it, but you have actually to use it.

In the reference they explain why it isn't part of regular -Wall, too.

Had they published it under GPLv3 instead (Why Upgrade to GPLv3, by rms), I would have been interested and been playing witht the code. Now, not. Your loss, Alcatel-Lucent.

It's not 100% clear on the matter, but it does describe more than just an operating environment:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifes...

Bear in mind that basically everything was commercial by that stage. By the later paragraphs, talking about the particular freedoms, it seems to allpy well to all software.

There's a Device Driver Environment that emulates parts of Linux as calls to other servers and Mach. Slides 22-25 have a bit of info on the port from running inside Mach to userspace.

How can you call "having values and sticking to them" the same as "flipping them the bird" ?

Stick to your values all you want, stop fucking bitching just because the clang/LLVM crew doesn't have the same values as you! So stop crying, stick your head back in the sand and just wait for the more tolerant (ability to work with proprietary software developers) licensed products run you over.

Eric Raymond wrote a great piece on the GCC mailing list about how the GCC is in danger of obsolescence by its exclusion of everybody who does not share their values in the face of superior competition from clang, this was then followed up by a post from Richard Stallman detailing his fear of the existence of a free compiler that is not crippled by FSF policies.

The FSF crew only sticks to their policies when it suits them, they use all sorts of proprietary hardware and software and if they truly stuck to their values and didn't piggy-back upon proprietary developments they would be totally fucked.

How can you call "having values and sticking to them" the same as "flipping them the bird" ?

Stick to your values all you want, stop fucking bitching just because the clang/LLVM crew doesn't have the same values as you! So stop crying, stick your head back in the sand and just wait for the more tolerant (ability to work with proprietary software developers) licensed products run you over.

Eric Raymond wrote a great piece on the GCC mailing list about how the GCC is in danger of obsolescence by its exclusion of everybody who does not share their values in the face of superior competition from clang, this was then followed up by a post from Richard Stallman detailing his fear of the existence of a free compiler that is not crippled by FSF policies.

The FSF crew only sticks to their policies when it suits them, they use all sorts of proprietary hardware and software and if they truly stuck to their values and didn't piggy-back upon proprietary developments they would be totally fucked.

This attack vector, used by aggressive vendors who want to kill open competition, is what the GPL was intended to prevent.

Which "aggressive vendors" have done this? Even the most locked-down ones like Apple have contributed back and made their sources available, not only to the free software community but even to their direct competitors. Look at Webkit, Darwin, Clang/LLVM, CUPS, OpenSSL, etc...

But even then RMS is opposed to the very existence of LLVM just because it is a project that competes with GCC but does not share his ideology and he does not want to allow collaboration between free software and proprietary software developers which he makes quite clear and that sort of zealotry should be discouraged:
"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us."
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

This attack vector, used by aggressive vendors who want to kill open competition, is what the GPL was intended to prevent.

Which "aggressive vendors" have done this? Even the most locked-down ones like Apple have contributed back and made their sources available, not only to the free software community but even to their direct competitors. Look at Webkit, Darwin, Clang/LLVM, CUPS, OpenSSL, etc...

But even then RMS is opposed to the very existence of LLVM just because it is a project that competes with GCC but does not share his ideology and he does not want to allow collaboration between free software and proprietary software developers which he makes quite clear and that sort of zealotry should be discouraged:
"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us."
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

The worst part is that systemd existed about ten years ago: GNU Daemon Managing Daemon, written in Scheme. It has recently been resurrected as the init system of GNU's Guix distribution... instead of ini-files (which have gotten out of control already in systemd and have transformed into an absurd little programming language with awful syntax and undefinable semantics) you extend it using Scheme modules which can be loaded without recompiling the entire daemon. New functionality is implemented as classes, methods, and plain old functions (better than shell pseudo-functions and "well just add a new ini key in C").

I'm not sure why we're reverting to an init system written in a barely-typed static language that doesn't have garbage collection (I really like it when a process I can never kill has any chance of leaking memory), can segfault with nothing more than a small typo, requires new releases to add even minor new features, and has an upstream that is ... difficult (I mean come on, rejecting patches to support not-Linux? Even when an offer to maintain the other system comes with the patch?), ... especially since Debian has (except for the whole GFDL is non-free spat) been pretty closely aligned with GNU.

One of the other posters answered your question, I'll highlight it for you "anyone who distributes GPLv3 code *must* give the recipients a royalty free license to any patents they own that are required to be able to use that particular product."

Sorry but no legal dept with a brain is gonna agree to that, you'd be wiping out the patent portfolio by linking in any way with GCC. This is why Apple made Clang, why companies are supporting LLVM, and why Google has a strict "No GPL V3" policy in place for ChromeOS and Android.

Between that and RMS himself saying the GPL is viral and pushing for GPL libraries over LGPL has made GPL verbotten in many places that previously were fine with it. We'll see if I'm right as we should have enough evidence in the next 24 months (to give time for enough to switch to GPL V3 to make most of Linux off limits) but I predict a lot of the money being spent on Linux dev will dry right up. You'll only have the "pure FOSS" companies like RH and Debian supporting it while the rest follow Google and Apple and switch to other licenses.

I'm not sure how GCC could benefit from this.

You are not reading history.

GCC moves too damn slow and doesn't include features that developers (and more importantly: the companies which pay developers) want. These days, that includes the changes between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 not being wanted by the people who pay the bills.

GCC was more or less started in 1984: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnup...

GCC was almost replaced by the EGCS fork in 1997, and it took two years before RMS finally gave up on the idea of having the ultimate editorial control over the language implementation, and "blessed" EGCS as the replacement for GCC. When he did that, he gave up on limiting the OSs that the compiler worked on, and limiting the inclusion of things like #pragma (which used to exec "nethack" because RMS didn't like it), and some of the language front ends that are now included, like g77, which RMS didn't want.

GCC is on the verge of being marginalized again by LLVM; all the sexy compiler work is happening in LLVM, all the bright young minds in the compiler world are going to LLVM because it's a lot easier to make a front end for a new language or a back end for a different processor or embedded controller or virtual machine. LLVM is the "go-to" compiler for academic projects involving compiler research.

It makes sense; GCC: 1984; +15 years = EGCS: 1999; +15 years = ????: 2014.

RMS' recent appeal *might* be able to attract a bunch of new ideologues to the GCC project, and have them forsake LLVM work, but more likely course and project requirements for a degree, and after that, an employer, probably mean that LLVM is going to remain the "go-to" compiler for the new blood.

The idea that GCC can leverage some of the new blood by making it easier for them to work with code in both contexts, rather than leaving GCC in the ashbin of history, is about the *only* way to give GCC the transfusion of new blood it's going to need to survive another 15 years.

It also couldn't hurt to expand the number of (or replace) members of the "GCC steering committee" so that GCC can get a little more forward momentum. You can get forward momentum one of two ways: (1) more specific impulse, or (2) take off the parking brake.

From: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
"The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.
So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they could not use. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.
But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!
Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it--time for the law to recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing copies.
With this analysis, we see why rejection of the old copyright bargain is not based on supposing that the Internet is ineffably unique. The Internet is relevant because it facilitates copying and sharing of writings by ordinary readers. The easier it is to copy and share, the more useful it becomes, and the more copyright as it stands now becomes a bad deal."

See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
"Something strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law. Under the US Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users--those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software--not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them "for their own benefit," the US government is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh new penalties.
How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of United States copyright law: the US Constitution. ...
The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a means toward that end. Readers' interests and publishers' interests are thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the publishers to the same level of importance as the readers. ...
The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of maximizing--not just increasing--the number of published works. The erroneous concept of "striking a balance" elevated the publishers to parity with the readers; this second error places them far above the readers.
Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase. The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we trade additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in literary activity. Well before the increment becomes zero,

From: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
"The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.
So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they could not use. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.
But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!
Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it--time for the law to recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing copies.
With this analysis, we see why rejection of the old copyright bargain is not based on supposing that the Internet is ineffably unique. The Internet is relevant because it facilitates copying and sharing of writings by ordinary readers. The easier it is to copy and share, the more useful it becomes, and the more copyright as it stands now becomes a bad deal."

See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
"Something strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law. Under the US Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users--those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software--not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them "for their own benefit," the US government is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh new penalties.
How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of United States copyright law: the US Constitution. ...
The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a means toward that end. Readers' interests and publishers' interests are thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the publishers to the same level of importance as the readers. ...
The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of maximizing--not just increasing--the number of published works. The erroneous concept of "striking a balance" elevated the publishers to parity with the readers; this second error places them far above the readers.
Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase. The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we trade additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in literary activity. Well before the increment becomes zero,

The industry has been slowly moving to the way of F2P

True. But to my knowledge, free-to-play hasn't spread to the consoles, nor has same-screen multiplayer spread to the PC. A cooperative platformer or a fighting game is unlikely to be made F2P, or even to be ported to the PC at all. Not a lot of people want to buy a second gaming PC for the TV room, carry a gaming PC back and forth between the desk and the TV every time, or crowd two to four people around a desktop monitor.

Besides, I apologize for being unclear. By "free engine" I meant that the engine is free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation. This means end users have the legal right and capability to 0. run the engine for any purpose, including use with self-created mission packs, 1. mod the engine, 2. provide copies of the engine to other people, and 3. provide copies of the mods to other people.

Well if you're going to do that, the companies might as well charge you the whole game, engine+mission, as a standalone.

Which is perfectly doable with free software. One can sell a copy of LibreOffice (the engine) with clip art (the mission pack).

Can't exactly sell additional mission packs if the original sucked.

If someone's game sucks, and the game's engine is free software, someone can create an entirely new game on top of it, possibly in a different genre entirely. Modders call this practice a "total conversion".

Hate him or love him: Richard Stallman was right! Read it and weep: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

The whole thing was written in 1997, for pete sake - when ebooks where still pretty much prototypes.

Read all about it at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

i am curious, wouldn't http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ emacs do everything you need? you said mouse less editing, and there are a lot of functions that can be added to emacs, through it's lisp programs. and easily modified nature.

i write in my spare time, but only for my own needs and i use the mouse. i have used emacs for some of it, but i like the bloated office suites a little better and since my time isn't rationed and i don't find and replace much at all.

I wonder what RMS would think of a more "business-friendly" license where a commercial entity selling software could take software that's publicly-available, modify it, and then distribute that to paying customers, but not back to the community, but where the license required them only to distribute the modified source code to those same customers, however the customers were not allowed to distribute it themselves.

Any kind of selective-treatment, for people or organisations is, in Free Software terms, a Bad Thing. (Well, with the exception of the actual owner - licensing decisions will always be theirs.)

You'd fail Debian's Chinese dissident test. You'd also fail to provide Stallman's Software Freedoms 2 and 3. The FSF probably wouldn't even consider it to be 'semifree'.

As for whether it would count as Open Source: not by the OSI's definition, no. You wouldn't even meet the first criterion.

I wonder what RMS would think of a more "business-friendly" license where a commercial entity selling software could take software that's publicly-available, modify it, and then distribute that to paying customers, but not back to the community, but where the license required them only to distribute the modified source code to those same customers, however the customers were not allowed to distribute it themselves.

Any kind of selective-treatment, for people or organisations is, in Free Software terms, a Bad Thing. (Well, with the exception of the actual owner - licensing decisions will always be theirs.)

You'd fail Debian's Chinese dissident test. You'd also fail to provide Stallman's Software Freedoms 2 and 3. The FSF probably wouldn't even consider it to be 'semifree'.

As for whether it would count as Open Source: not by the OSI's definition, no. You wouldn't even meet the first criterion.

And RMS' complain isn't about the license, it's about the modular design of clang/LLVM and the fact it can be used piecemeal in other software projects.

Stallman's email says that

The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail.

Not making the front ends for GCC compilers be libraries was done as one way of preventing GCC's code from being used in compilers that aren't free software, but he also said "We're looking for new methods now to try to prevent this". Discussion ensued, with Stallman apparently not being completely hostile towards ways of linking GCC code with other code:

I think it would be a ok to define an interface for GCC to link with source-analyzing code. At least, I don't see any particular problem in it. It would be like adding such code to GCC, more or less.

And RMS' complain isn't about the license, it's about the modular design of clang/LLVM and the fact it can be used piecemeal in other software projects.

Stallman's email says that

The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail.

Not making the front ends for GCC compilers be libraries was done as one way of preventing GCC's code from being used in compilers that aren't free software, but he also said "We're looking for new methods now to try to prevent this". Discussion ensued, with Stallman apparently not being completely hostile towards ways of linking GCC code with other code:

I think it would be a ok to define an interface for GCC to link with source-analyzing code. At least, I don't see any particular problem in it. It would be like adding such code to GCC, more or less.

And RMS' complain isn't about the license, it's about the modular design of clang/LLVM and the fact it can be used piecemeal in other software projects.

Stallman's email says that

The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail.

Not making the front ends for GCC compilers be libraries was done as one way of preventing GCC's code from being used in compilers that aren't free software, but he also said "We're looking for new methods now to try to prevent this". Discussion ensued, with Stallman apparently not being completely hostile towards ways of linking GCC code with other code:

I think it would be a ok to define an interface for GCC to link with source-analyzing code. At least, I don't see any particular problem in it. It would be like adding such code to GCC, more or less.

This is a compiler. What stops a company from branching a GCC and keeping their own mods secret?

The threat of having the Software Freedom Law Center filing a lawsuit against them?

They can leave the GPL license in place but just not contribute their changes anywhere.

...and hope nobody in a position to sue them finds out.

I'm pretty sure they would be free to put their own changes in a separate dll under a different license and just hook it into the normal GCCs compile process.

And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't, under the terms of the GPL; the fourth paragraph of section 1 "Source Code" in the GPLv3 says

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

(emphasis mine).

Or they could (Apple for example is pretty big brother why not get bigger?) just require people submitting to their App store to provide the source via a web submission and run their custom compiler against the code.

As GCC isn't covered under the GNU Affero General Public License, they might be able to get away with that.

This is a compiler. What stops a company from branching a GCC and keeping their own mods secret?

The threat of having the Software Freedom Law Center filing a lawsuit against them?

They can leave the GPL license in place but just not contribute their changes anywhere.

...and hope nobody in a position to sue them finds out.

I'm pretty sure they would be free to put their own changes in a separate dll under a different license and just hook it into the normal GCCs compile process.

And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't, under the terms of the GPL; the fourth paragraph of section 1 "Source Code" in the GPLv3 says

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

(emphasis mine).

Or they could (Apple for example is pretty big brother why not get bigger?) just require people submitting to their App store to provide the source via a web submission and run their custom compiler against the code.

As GCC isn't covered under the GNU Affero General Public License, they might be able to get away with that.