Slashdot Mirror
LLVM & GCC Compiler Developers To Begin Collaborating
An anonymous reader writes "While RMS is opposed to LLVM over its BSD-like license rather than the GPL, LLVM/Clang and GCC developers have agreed to try to start cooperating in an "open compiler initiative" to jointly tackle common issues that plague both compilers and issues that can be better served by working together rather than creating fragmentation between the two popular open-source compilers."
I'm not sure how GCC could benefit from this.
While theoretically GPL could subsume BSD code produced from the collaboration, I reckon it's more likely that brains are going to migrate rather than code. And I don't see those working on LLVM (for commercial interest) migrating to GCC.
If I were RMS I'd be worried.
The GPL is not for everyone or every company, get over it.
The BSD[MIT/APACHE/ZLIB] licence is the only real free open source license. In a perfect world we wouldn't need licences at all and everyone wouldn't have a hissyfit every time someone borrowed code from someone.
What do you think the purpose of copyleft (of which GPL is just a manifestation) was? The problems it adressed persist.
Now let me address the "freedoms" you're defending. There's always the quote "your freedom to wave your fist ends where my nose begins", but I'm not going to argue that in this case - let's assume users don't have freedoms like FSF asserts. Let's listen to you and focus on corporate freedoms:
You're saying people should have the "freedom" to leech, because this technically means the least amount of restrictions on a code. But in fact, what you're really defending is the right of authors of derivatives to restrict what their users can do. And you know what? I agree that they have that freedom: They built it, they should be able to do with it whatever they want. But the dissonance in your opinion is this: The author of the original piece of code which they built on also has the same right! So if you're going to defend people who impose restrictions that hurt end-users, why attack those that use the same right in the purpose of maximizing the freedoms of those same end-users?
So there are restrictions in both stories, just that BSD is asocial and GPL isn't: BSD says "do what thou wilt" and that inevitably favors the bully. Mind you, the bully (=the warlord in the case of anarchy) is going to impose his own rules. GPL says instead: Fair play rules are valid for everyone.
Having read TFA, this collaboration appears to be partly about build compatibility. So far, it sounds like LLVM/Clang has been imitating GCC options. But what happens when one or the other of them adds a new option or feature? That might break builds designed for the other one. So, it sounds like the two groups would like to start communicating and coordinating so that both systems can be compatible at a build level in the future. Implicit in this is that both would continue to exist as independent entities and that build compatibility would be a primary goal for both. Perhaps some deeper form of technical collaboration might even be possible in the future.
Then again, I may have that all wrong. I know nothing about it except what I learned from reading TFA. If that causes a problem, I'll try not to do it again.
RMS is like a typecast actor. He has his role, and plays it unswervingly.
However, if there are ways to help out the studio, even if he's not in the film, what's the issue?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
RMS has been one of the most important men of the last 50 years or so.
His contribution to society is immense.
We need more like him to fight for our freedom.
Just imagine a world with only proprietary software.
Locked into golden prisons.
No thanks.
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.
Except that you did it wrong.
BSD gives the author freedom, but screws the user. (1-1=0)
GP gives the author freedom, and preserves it for the user also. (1+1=2)
Really, this is simple math, there is no excuse for such a fundamental mistake.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
First off the author always has the freedom to do whatever they want (assuming they haven't transferred copyright to someone else), the license only applies to *other* people. If you're the author of a derivative work and feel you should get to claim credit for the whole of "your" work, then by all means feel free to replicate the no doubt trivial amount of labor put into all those libraries you used.
BSD grants essentially unlimited freedom to developers directly downstream, but makes no attempt to preserve those freedoms for anyone further downstream.
GPL grants somewhat restricted freedoms to downstream developers, but in doing so they ensure that everyone further downstream continues to get the same freedoms.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Except that you did it wrong.
BSD gives the author freedom, but screws the user. (1-1=0)
GP gives the author freedom, and preserves it for the user also. (1+1=2)
Really, this is simple math, there is no excuse for such a fundamental mistake.
Unless I ignore the Gnu implementation because of my commercial interests so the user never sees an implementation.
So we go back to Gnu = 0.
Seriously. I've seen projects and implementations totally scuttled over GPL. We would have LOVED to support the standard and commit code back, but the restrictions on our own code were unsustainable. So we went with BSD alternatives instead.
We would have LOVED to support the standard and commit code back, but the restrictions on our own code were unsustainable
In other words, your project could not be viable without oppressing your users. Sounds like good riddance.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!