Slashdot Mirror
RMS Objects To Support For LLVM's Debugger In GNU Emacs's Gud.el
An anonymous reader writes with the news that Richard Stallman is upset over the prospect of GNU Emacs's Grand Unified Debugger (Gud.el) supporting LLVM's LLDB debugger.
Stallman says it looks like there is a systematic effort to attack GNU packages and calls for the GNU Project to respond strategically. He wrote his concerns to the mailing list after a patch emerged that would optionally support LLDB alongside GDB as an alternative debugger for Emacs. Other Emacs developers discounted RMS' claims by saying Emacs supports Windows and OS X, so why not support a BSD-licensed compiler/debugger? The Emacs maintainer has called the statements irrelevant and won't affect their decision to merge the LLDB support.
I want some. Hmmm.
Lets see what my grandmother wants while we're at. Her opinion is just as valid.
... especially when someone acts freely and in a way you object to.
rights, so programming can be the domain of only trust fund babies, old retired men and people who have other jobs...
If he cared about the rights of poor programmers he'd be a different man.
So yes, people who need to work for a living will prefer a BSD license over a GNU one.
It also allows programmers to make money off their work. You know, "evil deceptive" poor people and middle class people.
NERD FIGHTTT!!!!!!
seriously, why would someone care if you can do X in something but not Y, unless you are apple anyway i dont get it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It is more resentment as BSD is "actually" open as opposed to the handcuffed license he wants to impose on people. Will take BSD style licensing any day of the week over proprietary or GPL
The rights of the user always triumphs the rights of the developer.
But in this case the user and developer are one. With even Microsoft supporting clang, Android, and Linux development in the latest visual studio alphas it is now emacs that is becoming the most proprietary with locking in. What a bizarre universe this is becoming
http://saveie6.com/
There's a little more than is being reported. Here's some other RMS lines in the same thread:
First we have:
"More precisely, Apple intends LLVM and Clang to make GCC cease to be a
signal success and a reason for all sorts of companies to work on a
compiler that always gives users freedom. That would be a victory for
Apple and a defeat for freedom.
I don't know what LLDB is, or what it might do. I am going to find
out."
That's a little bit paranoid, but it is still a cautious statement.
Then:
"This question is a small part of a big issue which is more or less bad.
I want to find out what it is, and think about it. Please do not ask
me to rush to a conclusion without finding out what is happening."
Again, in all of his posts he mentions wanting to discuss it a bit more. RMS is pretty incendiary, eccentric, and often does or says crazy shit but... in this case it sounds like he said something alarmist to get attention and try to get some discussion, without stamping his foot down or flipping his shit. That he's being selectively quoted to make news is bad juju.
Some of us prefer others to voluntarily give back rather than be forced to.
Take your time. But whatever you find out is irrelevant to whether or not the Emacs maintainer will accept LLVM support into gud.el, at least as long as I'm the maintainer.
I think I like him.
#DeleteChrome
miss developers who've said that GCC has been made deliberately harder to understand than clang... Something about wanting to keep the wrong sort of developers out. Freedom to obfuscate your code isn't really freedom of information either.
How?
It is open source? You can do whatever you wish. If you want to include it then you can. You want to contribute? You can as well.
Many gnu folks mod me down or get mad when I point out that just linking gun code means I can't use it at work. It is viral as the gpl is very strict and anti freedom. Most say just don't steal my work? I am just saying even linking is forbidden so WTF?
Yes that is less free than BSD where people do as they wish.
http://saveie6.com/
The most important tenet of GNU General Public License is that anyone who distributes a derived program is obligated to reciprocate by sharing the modified source. This is the "freedom" when RMS talks about "free software." Many other open source licenses such as BSD, MIT, and Apache concern more about attribution and no reciprocation, which more and more people seem to embrace instead. Many companies have a policy to use GPL code only in very specific cases and strongly forbids Affero GPL. If you are the author of some open source project and you want more people to use your code and make you famous, you'd care more about attribution and less about reciprocation. That's where GPL is losing ground.
I think RMS underestimates that many people are more than willing to exchange someone else's freedom for one's own fame. And famous projects tend to attract more contributors. I think RMS also overestimates that the proprietary code written by some company are worth contributing back to open source while most of them are garbage. Once he realizes his misunderstanding of people's motivation, he'd become less coercive.
I once had a signature.
This actually is in perfect alignment with RMS's life work, which is to hinder the efforts of people he doesn't like. He is a vengeful, awful person. He has made some important software but those days are long behind him, today he does nothing but hurt other people.
It's always been a cultural problem. People don't want Freedom. People want Money. Life is a game, and people use Money to keep score. RMS is that loser who values good sportsmanship over final score, it's a losing strategy, and he's losing.
he was that paranoid about systemd.
Well, it is, but it does sod all to protect that openness, so BSDed software often ends up less open by the time you actually get a copy of it.
The only stuff the GPL doesn't let you do is remove other people's freedom. That should never be a problem unless you were planning to do that in the first place.
we needed free software. GNU got it off the ground and protected it long enough. Now we can have more freedom that that. We can have LLVM instead of GCC etc etc.
Ah, Open Source infighting: "We're not the People's Judean Front! We're the Popular Front for Judea. The People's Front is over there".
the issue is, can people make money selling software? You know, contributing to their own survival and success. Both for individuals and companies. RMS doesn't care about that.
Then GPL is by definition Not free. BSD is about no restriction and being open and free. you can do both good and bad with that. GPL is about removing rights and freedoms and dictating what you can and can't do. calling GPL free is a joke as it is anything but free.
That makes no sense, because most open source is written by... paid professionals... making market rates. That is true of GPL code, BSD code, Apache code, whatever.
You probably just don't understand the markets you're talking about. I doubt you would make that big a un-truth on purpose.
Maybe you can't use GPL code at work. Others are required to use GPL code at work, unless it was written in-house. Others aren't allowed to use any open source at all. Some can use proprietary compilers and workflows, some cannot.
You can't "steal" somebody's work if you use it according to the license. That is true of all the licenses, and all the licenses are used (primarily!!!!) by commercial interests.
yep GPL is the communist approach to freedom, do as we say or else and as long as you are acting within the confines of its barbed wire fence you are fine and free to do as you will. Personally to me it is like the crackdown on terror, people are trading freedom in exchange for protection from a few.
Richard Stallman needs to be brought up to spec on what computers are capable of. He's still living in a world where he doesn't experience even a small fraction of what technology has allowed. If we don't update his firmware soon, he's likely to become completely irrelevant within the decade. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to feel that decade may have already passed.
are "large corporations working on whole operating systems" then you might prefer GNU.
If you care about regular programmers and projects of the size they might invent then you don't want GNU.
Then gnu is proprietary and licensed. Fine I get it. Don't say it's free and say stealing like I steal from Microsoft if I use printf If I want to include. In this definition GNU is the most proprietary license out there.
http://saveie6.com/
It's impossible to remove someone else's freedom, but it is possible to deny giving people freedom in the first place, like GPL.
do as we say or else and as long as you are acting within the confines of its barbed wire fence you are fine and free to do as you will.
Every society is like that. The "only" difference is how tightly closed is the fence. Otherwise, it's anarchy, and adults know that's bad.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You didn't go far enough. Obviously BSD is terrorism and imperialist hegemony!
Freedom now means "no rules allowed"? I don't think so. Freedom is a matter of self-control. People who distribute proprietary software control the users who accept the software. The users who accept the proprietary software cannot have freedom while they accept it. The GPL is free software because users who have GPL software are allowed to practice self-control. People who distribute proprietary software do not practice self-control.
I like clang better, recently. Nicer warnings and errors.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
with Lesser GPL. But I was talking about relicensing.
It is more resentment as BSD is "actually" open as opposed to the handcuffed license he wants to impose on people.
This is an argument that can go on forever.
You could say GPL is more free, because it leaves you free to dual-license the product. People who want it free can get it free, people who want to restrict other people's freedoms can get a proprietary license. As far as freedom goes, it is just as free as BSD (but not as free in money).
You can't have a dual license in any meaningful way with BSD.
Ultimately the difference between the two licenses is this:
If you want to have your software used as much as possible, even though you might not see the uses, then use BSD.
If you want to have people (and corporations) give something back in exchange for their use of the software, then go with GPL (or GPL + proprietary option).
It's pointless to argue about 'freedom' and 'which is more free' because the arguments don't relate to why people use those licenses.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Someone with no influence over a project complained about something and the developers are going to completely ignore his wishes.
What's the news here exactly?
That RMS doesn't want GNU to play with others?
This was clear from the very beginning.
The whole reason GCC isn't split into a separate front and back end is because he didn't want interoperability.
This story is completely pointless.
If you apply handcuffs to someone you can't then claim they are free. you say freedom is a matter of self control, this is true, UNLESS you are under the GPL where freedom is dictated to you under strict terms.
Well, it is, but it does sod all to protect that openness, so BSDed software often ends up less open by the time you actually get a copy of it.
Are you guys still spewing this BS meme? Letting someone use open code in a closed project does "sod all" to close off the original code.
that says you must share *all* of your code simply because it uses some LGPL library somewhere.
If it's full GPL you do, if it's LGPL you don't.
That's why everything useful is LGPL instead of GPL.
You could argue that LGPL isn't compatible with GPL and shouldn't be included in Linux >.>
the market value of software down to zero."
Citation PLEASE? That would be important.
Rick has forgotten that there are many licenses to open source. Back when he lectured at the University of Saskatchewan in the early-mid '80s, there was none of this bitter diatribe about BSD and such that I can recall. He's become old and crotchety.
As long as the source code for the .el component is licensed under the GPL, RMS has gotten all he has a right to ask for through the GPL. If he thinks the GPL is about ensuring no one can ever use code unless they also use the GPL, he needs to revisit his own paragraphs on linking of code.
*sigh*
It's a shame, really. He was such a visionary. Now he's just a ranting old man losing touch with reality. :(
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The underlying problem here is its potential to ease proprietary software development. It's sort of like “open source” in that while there are practical benefits to letting in proprietary software to gain market share, it fundamentally undermines the very principles and foundations of this community. If I wanted to run a proprietary operating system I'd have stuck with Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, or ChromeOS.
We don't all have to be agree with every word that comes out of RMS's mouth, but ignoring the issues will be the downfall of the community. There are already major major problems creeping in from the inclusion of proprietary software in all of the major distributions. Project after project is letting more and more proprietary pieces in and thats a major threat. We, the users, and the communities developers have less and less control over our software, and our computers.
software in your own software. But you can't because then you can't control the license of your own software.
You can use LGPL with your software and still control the license if you only link it and don't use it in a more embedded form.
And you missed that you can only use GLIBC because it's not GPL it's LGPL
The only stuff the GPL doesn't let you do is remove other people's freedom. That should never be a problem unless you were planning to do that in the first place.
You're thinking about forks and re-licensing. The other realm that GPL comes in is library use/reuse.
Say you're a developer, and putting together a new program. You don't care what license you use for the program. (I.e. you have no intention of "removing other people's freedom") You just want to get shit done and make an awesome program. Now, to do that you use third party libraries. You have no control over the license these third party libraries have. You didn't write any code in them, and you have no special relationship to the authors. One of the libraries you're interested in using is GPL licensed. Another is using a GPL incompatible OpenSource license. Sorry, now you're S.O.L., because you can't use both a GPLed library and a GPL incompatible licensed library in the same codebase. (A restriction which is *entirely* on the GPL.)
In this scenario, there's no intent to "remove people's freedoms" on the part of the person putting together the program, or on the part of the people who would potentially use the program. They're perfectly happy to let everyone have as much freedom as they had before the program was written. It's the GPL is the one who is restricting the freedom of the developer to make the combined program. It's doing so to theoretically protect the freedoms of the hypothetical future users who would be using the combined program, but it's hard to argue that amounts to much, as it does so by preventing the combined program from being written in the first place. "Fear not, citizen, the GPL insures that you'll always have the freedom to modify this non-existent program! You could totally fix bugs in this program, assuming it had any, which it doesn't, because it doesn't exist."
Of course, the GPL brigade would argue that's a good thing, because it encourages people to write GPL compatible equivalents for the GPL incompatible library. All well and good, but somehow I can't quite understand how that's actually preserving the freedom of that unrelated GPL-ed third party library. The freedom of everyone who uses the readline library is not in any way diminished because a program exists which also links against a proprietary library for controlling a particular niche brand of infrared spectrometer.
Sure: the GPL strictly states that nobody is allowed to put handcuffs on you. BSD is more along the lines of "anybody can stick handcuffs on you".
If you don't want handcuffs on you, you want the former, not the latter.
You know RMS didn't suddenly become crazy yesterday, or the day before, - hell people have probably been calling him crazy since the 80's if not from grade school. But he's done a hell of a lot. And he's fought battles against various licenses - and I think almost always he has looked ridiculous (remember QT?) - but you know what? A lot of it has worked - and done a lot of good.
Don't misunderstand me, I do think he's on the crazy-paranoid-wackoo side of things, but I think that open-source actually really needs the crazy-paranoid-wackoo perspective, and it would have been bulldozed long ago, were people like him not around to do their own thing, even when everyone else was calling them crazy.
You're a moron.
in a separate process that you don't link to, in a separate computer, and send it into space so it's not on the same planet.
No wonder you've never heard of that, you're too stupid to understand abstraction.
This statement has always confused me. Nothing in the GPL requires anyone to "give back" anything. What it requires is that if you give a GPL-ed program to somebody, you must give them (and only them) the source code to that program. Modifications to the source code must be distributed with the original code under the same license. So if you modify a GPL program and give it to a somebody, they get that code and all the rights to it that are protected by the GPL. You need not give it to the entity that originally wrote the GPL-ed code.
Well, it is, but it does sod all to protect that openness, so BSDed software often ends up less open by the time you actually get a copy of it.
Are you guys still spewing this BS meme? Letting someone use open code in a closed project does "sod all" to close off the original code.
Some people seem forever too stupid to ever understand something as simple as what you said.
you don't get anywhere with a BSD style license.
And for the record, I understand abstraction just fine.
Control abstraction involves the use of subprograms and related concepts control flows
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
A company can claim that the BSD code is theirs and show their propriatory code to prove it where you have to have the money to pay to show the court you don't owe the company anything.
The BSD code result can be patented and then your code or any implementation can be closed off.
And even Theo deRaadt disagrees with you, hence his hissy fit when some ex-dual-licensed BSD/GPL code became GPL only.
Everyone uses vi(m) anyway. // needed to be said ;)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Basically it is freedom in the Randian sense. Or "don't take away my freedom to be and asshole towards all of you!".
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
a parody.
No, people mod you down because you're a fucking idiot.
I know there aren't too many people who can lay claim to understanding the humanities on this forum; but, if freedom is dictated to you under strict terms, then it is not really freedom. It's some strict terms and a rigid framework intent on providing something. Stallman's something is more software distributed in a manner he sees fit, for his purposes of furthering his conceptions of freedom in computing.
He's a smart man, and I'll give him every prop for doing the right thing at the right time; however, some of his moves with the GPLv3 (while understandable considering the time they were made) make it clear that general freedoms take a lesser road in favor of GNU(tm) freedom. In my opinion, Apache takes a much more balanced approach.
No, I saw it for what it was. It simply seemed out of place in this discussion, unless you're using it as a means by which to concede and admit you have no counter-argument. That I'd find odd, since you laid out a decent counter to a very similar argument in another thread.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The GPL doesn't put handcuffs on you; the GPL removes your choice to attach handcuffs to the GPL software should you distribute it. You can do whatever you wish but as soon as you mix the GPL software with your own handcuffs (i.e. combine the GPL software with your own proprietary software then distribute that derivative), you forfeit your license to distribute the GPL software. Yes, the GPL does impose restriction, but these specific restricted acts are not worth protecting or promoting - distributing proprietary software does not allow users to practice self-control.
Sure: the GPL strictly states that nobody is allowed to put handcuffs on you. BSD is more along the lines of "anybody can stick handcuffs on you".
If you don't want handcuffs on you, you want the former, not the latter.
Soem people are very keen on having the right sort of padded handcuffs put on them by a loved one...
Read the GNU Manifesto sometime, would you?
If you want to have people (and corporations) give something back in exchange for their use of the software, then go with GPL (or GPL + proprietary option).
Using modified GPL software on my PC, may give it to friends. The original developer has zero benefit, there is no requirement to give my modifications to anyone who isn't paying for the software. The GPL is a tool exclusively tailored to enforce Stallmans four freedoms, so it only focuses on serving the user of the software and not any of its developers ( it can be an outright hindrance when you have multiple incompatible GPL versions to deal with ) .
The only way individual programmers can make money is to close the source code? If that is true, then no, that is not acceptable. I understand you think your need to make money is more important than others' freedom, but I disagree. This isn't a question of who is right and wrong, but rather your philosophy. If you need to restrict others' freedom, use the BSD license. If you want everyone's freedoms respected, choose GPL.
That is what Copyleft is. That is what GPL is supposed to be: using the copyright laws that were designed to protect proprietary interests in away that instead protects Software Freedom, that enforces Software Freedom.
Just because you refuse to understand the terms and arguments doesn't mean you've uncovered some hidden truth or something. You don't like Software Freedom. You find enforced Freedom too restrictive. You want to choose to be free, or not to be free. That is fine.
People probably mod you down because you pretend that people with a different view must just be stupid, or something. These are different choices based on different values, there is no utility in complaining about other people's license choices.
You know best what license to use for software you write, I know best what license to use for software I write, and RMS knows best what license to use for software that the FSF writes. This is all as it should be.
If you can't link GPL code at work, that is because of choices your boss made, not because of choices that RMS made or some implied deficiency in the GPL. Remember, people who choose the GPL want to be protected from your boss. People who don't share the values of the GPL are excluded for real reasons. You don't have to agree with those reasons or share their values to recognize that they have reasons that are based on their values, and they have every right to license their software in the way that they do. And you should be aware most of them are getting paid to write their code, most GPL code is written by paid programmers. Paid by companies. For-profit companies. With bosses who choose GPL. For business reasons. That doesn't make them less Free.
"Regular programmers" can easily exploit GNU in their own commercial offerings. The idea that they can't is a lie so absurd that it simply boggles the imagination. Some of the biggest corporatoins on the planet quite safely exploit GNU software and have been doing so for decades.
All that the RMS notion of freedom prevents is some toddler's notion of property where you take someone else's stuff and then declare exclusive ownership over it.
GNU software is by no means the most restrictive kind out there. The commercial stuff that programmers build off of are much more burdensome. This "toddler's dilemma" never seems to occur with commercial derived products. It never occurs to anyone to even whine about it.
The GPL and LGPL don't demand anything more of developers than what copyright law already does. That's the beauty of it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sure: the GPL strictly states that nobody is allowed to put handcuffs on you.
Nope, for example if people run GPL software as a service it isn't running on their machine and they also don't have the code for it.
BSD is more along the lines of "anybody can stick handcuffs on you".
How? If you have BSD-licensed software you are no less free than with GPL software. You're thinking of proprietary software, which is not the same thing.
I think not.
http://saveie6.com/
You (paraphrased): Abolishing slavery infringes on my freedom to keep slaves
The GPL is designed to restrain you from restraining others, you get certain rights and you can't pass on any less. You're right it does make reciprocity ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") a legal requirement, not voluntary. You want others to be nice to you, but the freedom to be a dick to them. But those people generally don't stay on my Christmas gift list for long. But hey, if it works... I mean GPL projects are free to use BSD code as well, unless you're on a crusade against proprietary software having more code everyone can use is a good thing.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.
And there it is. GNU manifesto is science fiction.
"The economics of the future are somewhat different. ...You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century."
"No money! That means you don't get paid."
In the real world, Patrick Stewart and Alfre Woodard got paid quite a lot to say those lines.
You didn't even address anything I said, much less contradict it. Try harder next time. I recommend that you may want to investigate the possibility of a parser bug.
It's pretty simple. If you don't want a GPL readline in your product, or busybox, then pay to write your own or buy a proprietary one. But please quit whining about GPL code stealing your freedom because you can't use it to make millions of dollars.
There is nothing stopping you from "using it at work". You just aren't allowed to distribute someone else's code without abiding by their license.
Uhm, no. If you need to restrict others' freedom, then ue the GPL - because that restricts freedoms int he name of preserving them. Just like the classic "fucking for virginity".
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Care to provide any significant examples of BSD software that's less open over time?
This specific case of LLVM/Clang/LLDB - are as open as it gets, Apple merge upstream every few months (if they're not developing upstream) - and what closed source stuff they do have is relatively insignificant.
Ironically all the examples of your alleged "problem with BSD" you mention, I see more prominent in GPL software (Linux/Android closed source binary blobs for drivers being the #1).
"If" Apple did decide to not contribute back upstream, they'll just incur extra overhead having to merge upstream into their fork and long term suffer the pains of the original code base slowly but surely diverging from the direction they take their fork... as happens with all forks sooner or later.
And I think you have it all mixed up, if anything GPL is the license that "removes your freedom" by disallowing any more permissive licenses to be used with GPL code bases. At least with BSD you have the freedom to mix with permissive licenses, proprietary licenses, and to not disclose the source code at all.
But I'm willing to write a BSD-licensed emacs replacement if RMS wants a real reason to be paranoid. Computer culture has taught me to disrupt the establishment, and that includes old leaders of a past counter-culture movement.
I make money of GPLv3 software.
What was your actual point?
RMS has a philosophy that users of software should have certain freedoms / rights (use, study & modify, redistribute, distribute). That's the gist of GPL and why he founded GNU. BSD-style license does not guarantee these freedoms more likely it's simply easier not to guarantee those rights ...
What rights do BSD contributors lose? All the community code exists, the community can continue without the commercial changes, the community is not required to use some commercial fork. They lose nothing if some contributor chooses not to give back. Furthermore, users of GPL'd code decide not to give back at times too. They can use some a commercial fork internally and benefit from community work and not give back. Also, various commercial users of BSD code have a pretty good track record of contributing back.
What rights do BSD users lose? **IF** they care about "free software" or access to the source code they can just avoid commercial/closed forks and stick to the community based code.
The GPL does *not* offer greater freedom, it creates restrictions to force behaviors it believes benevolent. Forced benevolence may or may not be a good thing but it is not freedom.
There's no forcing to give back anything.
It's just that if you give the software to someone else, you have to also pass on the same rights that you got with it. How is that possibly a bad thing? To do anything else is selfish and antisocial.
... larger corporations will build non-free proprietary improvements on BSD licensed code without contributing back, and to continue to be productive as a programmer you will be forced to pay for the licenses on their proprietary tools ...
Really? How did they degrade your performance? You have access to and may enhance and contribute to the exact same source code they did. You lost *nothing*, not one line of code, not one opportunity to add a new line of code.
And if your code was GPL based a corporation may do the exact same thing. They may fork and enhance a GPL based tool for internal use only and not share. They can continue to benefit and merge all your work and the rest of the communities work as well.
Stallman's idea of freedom is about users having control over the software running on their own computer. Users are supposed to have the control over the software and not the developer having the control.
He also objects to showering. Should we follow that example too?
What's wrong with strongly preferring a bath? :-)
I think you have a confusion about what a license does, and you rambled on about capitalism which I don't think you understand either. In any case, a software license gives you some rights in exchange of some obligations. The GPL itself is not designed to take away interoperability. The belief is that the availability of source code makes the software more interoperable, so GPL promotes interoperability by making it an obligation.
In fact, GNU projects like glibc, coreutils, binutils, gcc, even emacs are all about interoperability. They support various flavors of Unices and even non-Unix operating systems like Windows and BeOS. They support POSIX. Interoperability is so important they have an libiberty library to implement some missing C library functions so their programs could more easily compile on some esoteric operating system. Much of the code still uses ANSI C (C89) so they can be compiled using esoteric compilers.
The GPL itself embraces interoperability. There is this concept of "GPL compatibility" such that if it ever becomes necessary to include non-GPL licensed code in a GPL project, "GPL compatibility" means that GPL already fulfills all the obligations of the existing license. 3-clause BSD as well as MIT are GPL compatible (the 4th-clause of BSD, or the advertisement clause, is not). They have a page listing which licenses are compatible.
In this case, RMS is having a panic attack on more and more projects using a lax license, so he's trying political means to make emacs (the software, not the GPL license) non-interoperable to try to stop it. The maintainer of emacs however is more level headed and said he would not cave in and will defend interoperability. This is the right spirit of Free Software that RMS once believed.
I once had a signature.
"Anybody can stick handcuffs on you"? What a load.
Closer to "anyone can offer you handcuffs for you to choose to place your wrists in". It's not like $COMPANY can come along and contribute code to an existing product, and deny you whatever access to that product you have now.
But please quit whining about GPL code stealing your freedom because you can't use it to make millions of dollars.
First of, I'm not whining about GPL code stealing my freedom. I'm "whining" because GPL advocates claim ideological purity and claim that the GPL is only a problem if you want to take away other peoples' freedom, but completely ignore certain cases that complicate the matter.
Secondly, nothing in my example is related to "mak[ing] millions of dollars".(*) I specifically mentioned that the writer of the hypothetical example program doesn't care what license they use. They'd be perfectly happy to GPL their own code, if the GPL would let them. It's not about not wanting a GPL'ed readline in their software - it's about the fact that they want readline *and* a third party library over which they have no control of the license. (Again, I think you're making the same mistake the person I responded to made, and assume that the only person who would want to link against a non-GPL-compatible library is the person who made the non-GPL-compatible library in the first place. That's not necessarily the case. Third parties are also beholden to the GPL licensing restrictions, even if they don't give a tinkers cuss about what license is used in the final product, or how much money is made.)
I certainly see the argument for a quid-pro-quo, you-release-yours-if-I-release-mine type license, and if that's what you want to release your code as, feel free ... but at least have the decency not to claim it's "more free" because it imposes restrictions on downstream users, and *certainly* don't claim that those restrictions only cause problems if "you were planning to ... remove other people's freedom ... in the first place"
*) Also, read your FSF - they aren't opposed to making money from software. If you support the GPL because you're anti-capitalist, you're backing the wrong horse. As far as the GPL is concerned, you're completely free to take code that someone else wrote, package it up and sell it off for millions, if you can somehow swing it - you just need to mail source code CDs to anyone who asks for one.
God, I can't believe I used to think that sounded good when I was in college....it's not only stupid, the last bit about the government providing all software is pretty fucking scary. Fuck RMS, the sooner Apple and the BSD dudes send GCC to software heaven the better.
Baths are unsanitary. Think about it, you're trying to "clean" yourself in a tepid pool of water filled with all of the dirt, sweat, grease, skin flakes, fecal matter and whatever else that comes off of your body.
RMS did the very same thing to GNUstep. GNUstep currently supports both GCC and LLVM/Clang. The project does this for good reason: because Objective-C is better supported in clang than it is in gcc. GCC doesn't even consider ObjC as a release critical compiler and LLVM/Clang looks on it as central. Additionally clang supports many modern features of ObjC that gcc lacks and shows no signs of ever attaining.
RMS specifically indicated that supporting LLVM/Clang by mentioning it on our wiki page (http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/ObjC2_FAQ) was harming the GNU project in an important place. Our response was swift and unanimous against remove it since all we are doing is providing user choice and, given that GCC is inferior to LLVM/Clang for ObjC, we MUST support LLVM/Clang. To date we have gotten no response from RMS.
I think it's grossly unfair of RMS to request this. By supporting Clang and LLVM and LLDB we are not impacting user freedom. All we are doing is offering users a choice which, last time I checked was completely okay. What we have here is a problem where RMS sees his role in the FLOSS community diminishing because someone has come up with a faster, more useful and better support compiler.
If anyone has damaged the FSF it is not the folks at Clang/LLVM it is RMS and the FSF itself. They have systematically impacted developer freedom by doing the following to GCC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00008.html
"One of our main goals for GCC is to prevent any parts of it from being
used together with non-free software. Thus, we have deliberately
avoided many things that might possibly have the effect of
facilitating such usage, even if that consequence wasn't a certainty.
We're looking for new methods now to try to prevent this, and the outcome
of this search would be very important in our decision of what to do." -- RMS
This is terrible! Why would you do this?! RMS is trying to achieve through technical means what proprietary software companies try to do via copyright and IP law.
RMS is risking an all out rebellion of pretty much all of the FSF/GNU projects if he keeps this up. My advice to the FSF and to RMS is to allow developer freedom and stop viewing LLVM/Clang as a threat or a setback for it is neither.
GC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The freedoms of the user are not the same as the freedoms of the publisher (software distributor in the case of software). RMS's goal is that if you use the software, you should have the freedom to modify it. This restricts the distributor from locking it down. The LLVM side is that the distributor has the freedom to do whatever they want, which restricts the user. We are all users of technology, somewhere between once and a while and almost every waking hour. Only a minority are distributors. It is more social/progressive to protect the user's freedom than those of the distributor. When all but the leading edge of technology is a commodity, it makes more sense to protect the users' freedom.
GNU is RMS trying to impose college socialism on the world.
He's mad at all of the commercial software shops because they hired his playmates away from MIT. In his ideal world, only anointed programmers would ever write code, and they'd be paid by the taxpayers.
It's an extreme example but that's exactly right. People who paint the GPL as restricting freedom have no clue what freedom means. It's like saying the laws against rape or any violent crimes restrict freedom. Basically they want the libertarian version of freedom - to do whatever they like.
If you don't like the freedom the GPL offers then you don't have to use GPL'd code. Nobody is pointing a gun at your head.
The world is obviously "more free" when you can put handcuffs on people than when you can't. Those terrible GNU zealots want to take your freedom to handcuff people away. What kind of freedom is that? /sarcasm
That's exactly what I meant in my post. Freedom is a matter of self-control and the GPL codifies this essence of self-control in software. The GPL is a conveyance (distribution) license and it doesn't apply handcuffs to developers. Developers willing adopt the GPL software and adhere to its distribution policy by choice. The distribution policy of the GPL is basically "do not add more restrictions than what already exists". I could not equate such a policy to "applying handcuffs onto other people".
Oh, stop with the stupid straw men already. No-one is forcing you to use GPL'd software, or to use it in your own projects.
Software as a service isn't quite the same as distributing software. The GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license; the GPL has no say in how you use the software but in how you distribute the software.
The thing about BSD-licensed software is that the BSD license doesn't imply that the (licensed) software is free software. If you fork BSD-licensed free software into proprietary software, the derivative doesn't cease being BSD-licensed, it is now a BSD-licensed proprietary program. Yes, the original BSD-licensed free program is still existing and still available. However, whenever you see "this software is licensed under BSD license" you cannot be certain to assume that this software is free software, you're going to have to check the status on a case-by-case basis. Even if the software is simply a verbatim compiled binary of a free BSD licensed program, that copy doesn't imply that it is also free software.
Software as a service isn't quite the same as distributing software. The GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license
Right but these days SaaS is becoming much more common, the idea that "the GPL strictly states that nobody is allowed to put handcuffs on you" is outdated and antiquated, that statement also ignores Tivoization. These have been addressed in the AGPL and GPLv3 respectively but those have not seen wide adoption, indeed even the project central to Tivoization denounces it because it doesn't see Tivoization as a bad thing. The GPL in that case is a vehicle for "tit-for-tat" rather than freedom.
If you fork BSD-licensed free software into proprietary software, the derivative doesn't cease being BSD-licensed, it is now a BSD-licensed proprietary program.
Yes I should have written BSD-licensed sourcecode.
It doesn't help a user of OS X or Android that a lot of open source software is locked up in it.
The user still doesn't have the ability or even the legal right to fix it.
Which still has nothing to do with the originally released code. If you want to make a point about not being allowed/able/whatever to fix code, then make it without falling back on the decades-old half-facts. It only makes you look full of it.
The simple fact is that anyone who releases code under BSD or similar licenses is absolutely okay with that code being used that way - if they weren't, they wouldn't use that license.
If you prefer that others NOT be allowed to use your code in closed systems, that's also okay, but it's a matter of preference, not morality, and the kind of twisted doublethink that's been bouncing around the tubes for the last 20+ years trying to make it so is what's gotten RMS and his acolytes their well-earned "netkook" reputation.
RMS FIGHTS FOR THE USERS!!!!
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
That is why you should have a shower before your bath...
It leaves the users of the closed code in the lurch, which the GPL was designed to fix.
It was obvious to me, even not knowing about this moronic manifesto that the GPL license (not LGPL) is harmful to programmers.
I was always surprised that so many people accepted it without thinking the implications through.
IN THE REAL WORLD, the GPL doesn't make society "post scarcity" it just lowers the value and therefore salary of software engineers.
You're kidding yourself if you think that any significant proportion of users or developers don't care about software freedom.
You see MS coders care about MS. Oracle coders care about Oracle. Apple coders care about Apple. BSD coders care only about BSD.
They are all separate and against each other.
But all GPL coders are working together because the license makes it so.
And that's vastly greater in number than those against software freedom.
Yeah right. And the prophesy that we'd be working 12-hour weeks and the problem would be finding what to do with all the time we have free from needing to work was engineers and economists trying to make working unprofitable.
Fuck you're a moron.
Don't need to program != cannot make a living programming.
RMS does raise very valid point, the GNU project is under a threat from getting hijacked. But not just GNU, other open source software projects as well.
Like example the INIT. I love the idea in scripts in Unix systems (while I don't much know about those, so take this as grain of salt) and the idea that everything is a file and configuration files are in plain text format. But I dislike the systemd because I just don't know at all how to really configure it, what it really does and where are what. And as far I understand (remember, my knowledge is limited) the logs and other important things are in binary files, that is contrary to "everything is a file, configs are plain text".
Once we move to that area, the user freedom, easy configuration changes and security (backups, restore, cloning, sharing, editing etc) with basic tools (programs like cat, grep, find etc and shell commands like ls, >, | etc) becomes difficult or even impossible. And that is the danger zone when user can not manage his computer with basic tools or then chosen custom ones (own scripts, manufacturer scripts/programs etc).
BUT. GNU is a threat to open source as well. RMS own idiocracy to try to make Linux as "just a kernel" while it is a monolithic kernel and the complete operating system as is, without any code from GNU project itself (bootloader doesn't belong to OS, INIT or anything it launches doesn't belong to OS). And demanding that everything is under GPL etc can be viewed as limitation, but GNU goal to erase history to get fame is terrible thing it does (read example the uname program history, GNU fans added own options and renamed "operating system" to "kernel" and added own special -o option that calls OS + Glibc as the "operating system". A very serious reality distortion field building!).
But as long there are people in control and at least aware what is happening, I hope we can guide trough the policies in situations like this. Sure there will be the clash of the believes, but there should not be compromises done. We can not just take point "Nah, its perfectly safe and no worries!" and "It is fully dangerous, it is a decease!"
Instead build a backup plan, that is the beauty of the open source, if A doesn't seem to fit, build a B to replace it if needed.
That is being smart, no competition but just teamwork. Improve what is needed, use improved when needed and get the better end result out a side of the "threat". So if risk happens, you have backup plan to go!
This is what RMS tells. Support GNU. Nothing special. BSD or GPL is irrelevant. LLDB vs GDB is also irrelevant. Just prioritize good GDB support over LLDB. It is a resource assignment question.
The problem with Stallman is that he has already shown himself to be corrupt and betray the very people who supported him and used his licenses. If you want proof trying reading section 11 "RELICENSING" of the GFDL, then have a look at why this clause even exists. A pathetic trail of corruption that betrayed all wikipedia contributors. Basically he put in a clause in GFDL that allowed companies like wikimedia to change to a completely different licence. Since people are found to future version of the GFDL - there is nothing they can do about it. As people have mentioned jokingly... GPLv4 could easily say anything he wants.... He could even insert a clause saying FSF can sell and make money off any GPL program. Thankfully the important code (Such as linux kernel) is well educated on the cancer of the GPL and RSM's ideas. Do yourself a favour. Use GPL 2 and specifically make sure you don't licence code/docs that will be subject to whatever future licence version RMS/FSF crap out. Trusting RMS/FSF for all eternity is insanity. The licenses will continue one by one to become corrupt. Wikimedias special treatment is just the start. It will go like cancer, not to mention that whoever leads the FSF has complete power....
While his original idea has some sound points, the ideological militancy with which he pursues it does more harm to free software than good at this point. BSD-style licenses are not the enemy of free software.
Shunning BSD goes far beyond attacking non-free software; it's shunning free software proponents who don't shun non-free software. What's next, refusing to work with developers who also contribute to BSD projects? Refusing to work with developers who don't refuse to work with those developers? Take that far enough and you're basically on your own.
In this case he was right. Apple goes away from ObjC. If resources were poured on GNUStep + Clang the whole project would be perished at Apple's will (see Swift). If you want my 2 Cents, re-write it to D. GCC has a D frontend. ObjC development is too costly to invest your limited resources. Apple is a corporate, they do whatever they need to get money even if they choose to betray the 3rd party developers. However by porting to D I see bright future. C is not an option because the resources are limited.
Which, again, has nothing to do with the original BSD licensed code.
I feel your pain if the chip IP vendors move to LLVM and won't share the source to their backend. However, I don't see an incentive model for them to change their ways, except maybe you now choose the chip IP based on the toolchain's source code availability, or convert to a mainstream CPU.
It's futile trying to stop LLVM at this moment. They are funded by Apple with a lot of contributions from Google and the like. There is a lot of velocity being put into the development that gcc simply can't match. The feeble attempt of RMS won't stop them.
By the way, it seems that most people talking here don't develop at all. You might have found some who do when you moderated the thread, but you're the first one I know.
I once had a signature.
I don't know if I would say most GPL code is paid for by companies, but most of the major projects are and people on Slashdot always forget this. CUPS is basically maintained by apple. Intel, IBM and Google fund a great deal of development because they have a large enough interest in the source base and it offers no competitive advantage for them to keep it in house. Still we end up with a lot of starving developers (GNUPG) for major projects that no one ever does contribute and smaller corps outside the tech industry often never give back financially or source wise to anyone other then RHEL.
We fight a lot about developer freedom on Slashdot, but we hardly ever talk about the majority of use cases of GPL code is in-house IT departments building code that is never distributed and there for never required for source release. So, if the GPL encourages most companies that do distribute software packages to avoid it, but doesn't discourage the plethra of in-house proprietary extensions then I say it fails to do its job. I would rather companies rip of my BSD code and get attached to it with the hope that a few developers will like the project enough to contribute on their own time and maybe a few companies will actually offically upstream packages then have the majority of use cases be dismissed over the fear of the plague spreading. For this reasons the closest I get to GPL is LGPLv2
No, he's worried about competition from LLDB. One day he might have to worry about it being a better product, but that day is not today.
Some of us prefer that the rich were generous, that there was no crime, that there was world peace, that government was not a necessary evil, etc. Meanwhile, the GPL was created because it has been consistently shown that relying solely on voluntary action results in hoarding just like how one can't feed the poor merely by offering free food at a dispensary. Too many people who are already well off will abuse the situation and "correct" for the "market failure".
In short, your argument spews more as the words of either a delusional fool or an opportunistic asshole.
The GPL FAQ mentions cases in which you may as well use a more permissive license. Therefore, he doesn't consider BSD evil, only inferior in most cases to the GPL. Stallman also writes about selecting licenses for tactical effect. If gcc was strictly GPL, all the output would be GPL, since it contains stuff from gcc in it. Stallman thought that that would hinder adoption of gcc, and therefore there are additional permissions that allow people to use bison and gcc to create a parser, say, and have that parser be proprietary.
There is some acrimony between BSD and GPL fans, but I'm not sure of Stallman's role in that. Some of the quotes I've seen show that some BSD supporters like GPL less than they like outright proprietary licensing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Some of use recognize that other people may have their own opinions about licenses, and that arguing about them is unlikely to accomplish anything.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Freedom and power are not the same thing. When someone distributes a non-free derivative of a Free Software program, the distributors are exercising power over the users of that derivative.
Digital Citizen
Okay, so you can't use GPLed code at work, due to restrictions imposed by your job (possibly you sell shrinkwrap software, or have a boss who distrusts the GPL). You know what? You can't use Microsoft's proprietary code at work either, or Apple's. You could perhaps negotiate with them for use of it (I don't know how big and/or important your company is), but you could do the same with GPLed software. MySQL issued its software under the GPL, and was willing to sell other licenses.
All licenses come with consequences, and the consequences of the GPL are different from most. That doesn't mean they are better or worse, except for specific purposes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
RMS is not alone in his views on working to marginalize GCC in favor of something that can be made into proprietary software, Brad Kuhn talks about copyleft licensing and around 21m44s in the linked linux.conf.au talk he points out that proprietors (he notes Apple by name) contribute enough upstream to non-copyleft Free Software projects to keep those projects useful to the proprietor. It's hardly a stretch to see Apple doing the same for LLVM "because [Apple and Qualcomm] want GCC to die" as Kuhn points out in his talk. Steve Jobs and NeXT's history of copyright infringement with GCC is very much a part of this story. Being caught infringing the GPL on GCC is something I doubt Jobs or Apple ever forgot and is a big part of the reason why he, like so many open source enthusiasts, think non-copylefted licenses such as the MIT X11 and new BSD license are better than than an enforced GNU GPL.
Eben Moglen is quick to point out in his consistently wise speeches that "RMS was right" (as he did in his linux.conf.au 2015 keynote speech). /. should learn to do the same. If you want to get comments like "RMS is pretty incendiary, eccentric, and often does or says crazy shit but... in this case it sounds like he said something alarmist to get attention and try to get some discussion" you should back it up with specific examples of what you mean. His flavor of "eccentricity" led us to recognize software freedom as an ethical human need well after RMS saw this; another clear example of how RMS was right. When what RMS says looks to you as "crazy shit" you should make it clear to others that you understand his long history of being right on these issues.
Digital Citizen
I think you're evaluating RMS' argument according to priorities you're imposing on him (such as talking about offering "choice" as if that's always a good thing) rather than trying to understand what software freedom is, how freedom and power differ, and why copyleft is something worth fighting for. That you would actually use the term "IP" as you do (meaning the phantom "intellectual property") suggests you haven't considered that concept very deeply either.
Digital Citizen
I am surprised by the ilk who claim GNU/Libre centric projects like Trisquel, FreeSlack, Ututo, Dragora, Parabola, Blag (please restart that cool distro) et al and attendant free software like Emacs does not respect their freedom to deploy proprietary software when they wish. Free software projects are the minority, non-free is the majority. For some of us, free software is important and we choose to pursue this. Those who choose otherwise, you have Windows, Apple, and so on. You don't have to use Libre software. Don't like Emacs? Want a proprietary version of Emacs? Go make it the proprietary dream text editor you want it to be. Decades ago Stallman had a dream of a free operating system and now I benefit from it. Stallman is not getting a massive paycheck for free software, unlike the proprietary counterparts. Stallman was clever enough to draw up the documentation and frame work for how free software can function--not for his benefit, but for all. He fights, not for himself, but the User. I understand there are people who disagree with his ideas, to you I say, 'kindly move along, there is nothing to see here.' For a while, free software is more convenient in some respects than non-free. However, non-free software proponents have deep pockets and are coming up with ways to make their work more convenient than free (at the moment). Stallman says between convenience and freedom, he picks the latter. So please, if proprietary floats your boat, knock yourself out. In schools, workplaces, and other environs, non-free operating systems and programs are the default so I already have more than enough proprietary software in my dietary intake. It is only now that free/Libre software is really a viable option. I am happy to first see, then use Free/Libre software that actually works, and now computers (and phones!) built around the idea of free hardware and software. I want this, but my choices are limited. If proprietary, dude, the choices never stop. So what's the freak out? Why do you deny a varied ecosystem of choice? What's it to you if some of us prefer freedom?
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Good retort. Mod parent up.
Free Software enables software engineers. At home, I have an excellent development system that runs a variety of languages, and I paid nothing for the software and have access to the source (which I haven't downloaded in all cases). The Android programming kit I downloaded plugs directly into Eclipse.
In the 1990s, I was doing Macintosh development and general programming using proprietary products, and paid a good deal of money on Macintosh Common Lisp and Metrowerks C and C++. There were free (as in beer) alternatives, but they weren't very good. (No, I never did get along with Macintosh Programmers' Workshop.)
Therefore, it's a lot easier to break into software development nowadays, and software engineers can do more things than ever to develop programs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're entirely correct. All these people complaining about RMS, while they're surrounded on a daily basis by software that stands in opposition to his ideals. From the rhetoric you'd imagine the opposite was true.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
All right, someone mod that one +1 Funny.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Some of us prefer others to voluntarily give back rather than be forced to.
And some of us don't trust you to actually come through...
Stefan Axelsson
RMS is ironically the worst member of the FOS community. Between his penchant for defending beastiality and pedophilia, to his insatiable desire to control what people do with their machines and their code just to spite corporations, to taking credit for things he didn't create, and his public displays of childish rage when things don't go his way, he's systematically made a mockery of the FOS movement for the last thirty years. When you see his picture these days, you don't think freedom, or open-source, or integrity. What you see is him being used as the butt of a joke, because that's essentially what he is. Linus Torvalds may be known for being a jerk, but he's still very well respected, is very dignified in his photos, and has changed the world for the better. RMS isn't respectable, isn't dignified, and will be forgotten in the annals of history. As he should be.