Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS Objects To Support For LLVM's Debugger In GNU Emacs's Gud.el

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the purity-in-body-mind-and-spirit dept.

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.

5 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. Ain't freedom a bitch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... especially when someone acts freely and in a way you object to.

    1. Re:Ain't freedom a bitch... by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's presenting and supporting a position that he holds. He's not flaming anybody, he is participating in a rational public debate about something that he helped to start, which seems entirely fair. He chose not to keep maintaining emacs day to day, and so that is his role; to say what he thinks the people running it now should do.

      What you're doing, though, is just to flame him... for speaking his mind... while trying to accuse him of being against the speaking of minds.

      It should be very easy to form a rational basis for views contrary to his. Unfortunately you abandon the attempt right at the start, and resort instead of a basket of logical fallacies. His views are at an extreme end, it shouldn't be hard at all to be both contrary and reasonable.

  2. Re:Who cares what RMS wants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets see what my grandmother wants while we're at. Her opinion is just as valid.

    If your grandmother is a developer producing useful software available at no cost, used by millions all around the world, and both articulates a philosophy and draws up a license facilitating useful systems such as every Linux distribution, starts a foundation known around the world to advocate said philosophy and host said software, and encouages many people (even those who do not agree) to think about and discuss such matters ... then yes at that point I will begin to care about her opinion on this subject.

    If you don't like RMS that's fine, if you think he's completely wrong that's fine too, but to dismiss his views the way you are doing is weak, cheap, and shows that you lack the emotional maturity to separate your personal feelings from the actual subject at hand. I hope that pointing this out will be useful to someone else, because as for you, I doubt I could reason with you in an adult manner. The really annoying part is: so many people are like this that they think it's normal.

  3. Re: Who cares what RMS wants? by fuzzytv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it's not throwing tantrum. 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, and Stallman sees wider adoption of projects using those licenses as a threat to free software. I do work on BSD-licensed projects, but I certainly do share his fear that this poses serious threat to free software in the long run.

    I don't think it's a conspiracy or somehow widely orchestrated effort - more likely it's simply easier not to guarantee those rights and thus more attractive for commercial companies (participating in those projects), but I believe the threat to the freedoms is real.

  4. Re: Who cares what RMS wants? by peppepz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Later versions of the GPL cannot take away any freedom granted by an earler version, because the choice of the version is done by who redistributes the code.

    The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

    If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.

    Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version.

    But serisouly GPLv3 started because of his tantrum with Tivio.

    GPLv3 started because RMS saw that companies were using the GPL in a manner that was compliant to the letter but not to the spirit. Back then, the GNU haters laughed at him, as usual, because "who would want to run code on a set-top box". Nowadays, the vast majority of the end-user devices are tivoized (Android, Apple, Microsoft, ...), and users can't do anything with the code that runs on them, including fixing security bugs and auditing it to find out what it does with all their personal data, let alone (God forbid!) run their own programs on it. So the introduction of the GPLv3 wasn't a whim as you are implying, it was actually sensible and farsighted.