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.
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.
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.
Say what? I disagree, but at least your rant made sense, right up unti you said:
>So yes, people who need to work for a living will prefer a BSD license over a GNU one.
BSD is only a hairs-breadth removed from public domain - it gives away pretty much all the rights that can be given, unlike GPL which retains many rights in order to impose reciprical giving on downstream developers.
I can only assume that by "people who need to work for a living" you are refering not to the people that did the actual work to create the BSD code, but rather to the exploitative sorts who happily harvest their code to incorporate into proprietary software without giving anything back.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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 point is that under GNU your labor will almost certainly be forced to be free as in "not paid"; that's the practical consequences of the license. Under BSD you don't have that problem at all.
And that was my point. Giving away your time for free isn't something that normal people can afford. And as programming becomes no longer so lucrative (hey, they do it in India, China and east Europe now) then getting work out of people from lower classes becomes more important.
BSD allows you to incorporate the code into something that DOESN'T give the source away for free.
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.
Uhm you miss that people actually need money to survive. RMS never cared about regular people. He could have come up with a system that was capable of working for regular folks who need to work for a living if he did care.
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".
Uh isn't that freedom? Are you advocating forcing someone to not do something you unapprove with it?
The head of the church never cares about its members so long as he's ok.
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.
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.
Right, but since no one else can relicense your software and make a real project using it, it's only non-GPL'd software that's useful to working people. It's the non-GPL stuff that's more free in real usage.
Under the GPL, companies can collaborate in ways that are possible but less likely with BSD. With BSD, there is a strong incentive for an individual company to put out closed-source binaries with some extra "secret sauce" over and above the open-source versions. Think of it as a tragedy of the commons or prisoner's dilemma where there is a strong incentive to defect. Using the GPL, this isn't possible.
Instead, the GPL promotes collaborative projects. Look at the Linux kernel, which gets contributions from many, many companies.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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
Freedom and money are two sides of the same coin. Freedom is useless without the financial means to enjoy it. Likewise, money is useless without the freedom to use it as you see fit.
-- $G
RMS has never cared about the rights of "poor programmers." He has only ever cared about his own rights. GNU, the GPL are just his way of trying to force his own philosophy down the throats of the OSS community.
He's getting old, he knows he's well past the point that he was ever considered relevant, people have moved on. People realize that the GPL is more of a political statement than a practical, free software license. RMS isn't afraid of BSD licensed code being closed up, he's afraid of people not being indoctrinated, not following in goosestep with his personal philosophy. He doesn't want better software, he wants software licensed the way HE wants it licensed. He doesn't want any project to benefit from OSS unless it's GPL licensed and the copyright is assigned to his personal organization.
That's the real irony of RMS spouting about "free software," he doesn't want free software. He wants GPL licensed software. He wants you to hand your copyright provisions over to the FSF so that he has ultimate control over them. The community has responded by developing better solutions under better licenses and now he's steaming mad about it. Tough. The world has moved on Stallman, you can either be a part of it or you can be left behind...and judging by the fact that LLVM and its ilk even _exist_, most people want to leave him behind. He's no longer representative of the community, he's only representative of his own, personal agenda.
How many people have made a living in some way off of GPL'd software? It's a much larger number than you think.
-- $G
You didn't go far enough. Obviously BSD is terrorism and imperialist hegemony!
No. You have to provide the source *for the GPL software used in your project*. Nowhere in the GPL does it say you have to provide *your* source.
Now, if you make modifications to the GPL code you are using, yes, you have to release those changes. That does not, however, apply to code that you write that *interfaces with* any GPL code you use.
It's simple, really: Did the code start out as GPL? If yes, you must release it; if no, you can do whatever you want, even if it interfaces with GPL code.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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."
BSD license means Netflix doesn't have to share the BSD code they use or their modifications to that code. That they share anyway is good on them, but the BSD license i more than happy to seem them simply take the code and use it without giving anything back. That's all fine and well, but let's not confuse the issue, here. Just because the BSD license allows you to not share the BSD code you use and the GPL license requires you to share the GPL code you use, don't be so dense as to think that has any implication, whatsoever, for the code you write to interface with any BSD or GPL code; the two can actually co-exist in the same project, if you understand how both licenses work in the first place.
99% of the time, people who don't want to share their code have shitty code in the first place. You're better off without their code.
So, all that spouting off about how BSD is better than GPL because it lets you not share your code if you don't want to... then you close with that. Well... I honestly don't know what to say, I facepalmed so hard I think my brain is hemorrhaging.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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 >.>
There is a move toward BSD for a number of reasons. It is difficult to comply with the
new GPL on some modern platforms where bits of this and that are closed. Many of
the new SOC devices have NDA or binary blob support for this and that.
The new compiler has already kicked the GCC folk in the logjam of bugs and features.
As long as the bits packaged with GCC are GPL there is no big issue.
The Apple example is interesting. They have used LLVM and kit on some projects
but recently have given their internal changes back to the LLVM community. Not because
they had to but because keeping up with a wider and wider collection of diffs is harder
and harder to do.
RMS is correct to be concerned and the selection of hardware and software
needs to consider licence as well as long term maintenance of their product.
With the internet of things coming there will be litigation should a company
fail to maintain a bug fix stream during the reasonable life expectancy of the device.
Some cell phones distribute the blame... Google, Samsung, AT&T where each
is a congested pile of congesting making me feel samstung. I now only buy
half price unlocked refurbished hardware with removable batteries when a device
get too long in the tooth. My current phone was purchased because of tower investment
and no more. They are no longer updating it so I am looking hard at rooting it
for a list of missing features.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
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.
Why not? If you can't or just don't want to accept the terms of GPL, contact the copyright holder and negotiate different terms. They might refuse but they might not.
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
GPL only serves users, it does not serve people who program for a living. And it doesn't serve users very well either, due to it's generally poor quality.
So... the linux kernel doesn't exist? Huh. who knew, eh?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
instead, the GPL promotes collaborative projects
Look at the gcc/emacs integration that spurred this whole llvm with emacs mess. People tried to collaborate between two GPL projects, Stallman declared it too dangerous, the GPL insufficient to deal with the consequences and practically killed the attempt singlehandedly since he still has enough influence over gcc.
The GPL only works for Linux since Linus does not care, binary only drivers in kernel space? He hates it. Will anyone sue Nvidia? Is a lawsuit the reason AMD supports open source drivers? No.
Alternatively we have GCC where Apple provided the ugly, non-portable code for their Objective-C compiler before moving to LLVM. Of course Apple didn't provide the runtime or any information of how/why or what the code accomplished anything. So a complete loss on the FOSS side while meeting the GPL requirements 100%.
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.
Read the GNU Manifesto sometime, would you?
Under the GPL, companies can collaborate in ways that are possible but less likely with BSD. With BSD, there is a strong incentive for an individual company to put out closed-source binaries with some extra "secret sauce" over and above the open-source versions. Think of it as a tragedy of the commons or prisoner's dilemma where there is a strong incentive to defect. Using the GPL, this isn't possible.
Instead, the GPL promotes collaborative projects. Look at the Linux kernel, which gets contributions from many, many companies.
Problem is lets say I do a startup for a social networking with cool instant message and stock quotes or something silly. I being the CEO let my programmers foolish pick whatever code they want and they told me GPL. Since we do not sell software we ARE SAFE. I say ok.
My website takes off and investors kick in and want me to sell and go public and EMC also offers me a ton of money to sell it to them if I choose instead. Oops under Sarbanes Oxley or any private transaction this counts as a sale for either.
JP Morgan flips out and so does EMC during an audit and tells me I have to give away millions of dollars of IP away?? EMC cancels the deal as competitors can now take it and a million clones overnight can compete without the cost EMC has to pay for a competitive advantage over them. Wall Street then says ok since I have no assets I therefore have no value. Not interested.
I get fired from the other owners of the company who then choose to liquidate it for pennies on the dollar is better than nothing.
I can't buy said software. Even if I did the owner can't sell me the rights to the software I linked and worked on as he put it under GPL and other peoples' rights would be violated.
My example is more extreme but give lawyers a real scare. Yes RMS hates commercial software and anything proprietary. We get it but this is like a little logic bomb for any developer wanting to make a living and it is bad for any company. They are not there to collaborate. They are there to make money and giving away IP is stupid as it cost money to produce and is therefore an asset. Might as well hand out money (another asset) while we are at it? So if you scream you ARE STEALING MY CODE will fine I wont use it. Just do not be butt hurt when corporations have an obligation to not use your products for the common good regardless of your intentions unless BSD or public domain.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
But the point is moot because the vast majority of end users (probably almost all of them) don't know - nor have any need or interest in knowing - whether the software they use is free software or just proprietary freeware. Ultimately it's just a binary, whether the source code used to compile it is licensed under a free software license has absolutely no consequence in terms of control for almost all end users.
"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
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.
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!
Not possible. They cannot prevent you from using your own work as you wish, under any circumstances, period, end of story. They can prevent you from using their work.
This kind of crap is the Stallmanite stork in trade: lay out a dystopian vision where programmers' work is taken away from them never to be seen again. If they'd quite peddling this lie, then things would be a lot calmer.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I make money of GPLv3 software.
What was your actual point?
It's a fear of the corporate value-add, a fear of competition. A fear that a BSD codebase could be augmented with new functionality and the source not released, as you rightly say the original codebase is still free and people are free to add to that. But also a process running a binary built from GPL code can communicate with a process running proprietary binary so it's not much more difficult to extend GPL programs with proprietary functionality either if that's what they actually wanted to do.
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.
Right, but since no one else can relicense your software and make a real project using it, it's only non-GPL'd software that's useful to working people. It's the non-GPL stuff that's more free in real usage.
Sorry, but that's stupid and wrong.
Where I work, we can only use free and open source software, preferably GPL. So by releasing your software as proprietary software, you're making it not useful to people like me who earn money by doing things with software.
... 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Yes it does, but the majority of users are installing binary blobs to get their graphic card to work. So the point still remains - the GPL has not guaranteed the users anything more, and in general discourages developers to write the driver in the first place.
The main problem with the GPL is that it gives rights over code to people who do not code. Most of the people using GPL software do not write code, and yet they are given rights over it.
The GPL was once a way to insure that developers could collaborate and insure that no one would "steal" their code, or that they would work for something that later they had no control over or simply not have the ability to have the contributions of others in an easy way. But presently the GPL takes the rights away from the developer and gives them to people who don't even write code.
The reason BSD license code is more popular is simply because it gives the rights to the developer to do what he wants with the code. It keeps it in the hands of the one who wrote it, not the one who uses it.
Having someone take your hard work for their own profit and not return the favor with a few bugfixes they might implement is also a pain in the ass. That's what the BSD license enables. I'm not saying one is better than the other in all cases; you may not care about having access to fixes and performance enhancements, in which case go ahead and use the BSD license for your project, it's probably the better choice for you; but if those things matter, then GPL is the clear winner between the two.
They're two different licenses with two separate sets of goals, both equally valid and both having ideal use-cases. The sooner we can get both sides to stop spreading FUD about each other, the sooner the FOSS community can stop looking like a bunch of reckless apes that can't tie their own shoes. Then, we can begin making some real progress.
Follow?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yes it does, but the majority of users are installing binary blobs to get their graphic card to work.
So? The GP asserted that the code is low quality (it is not: Linux is about the highest performing kernel out there and GCC is about the best compiler out there).
The world is also not black and white. Having some binary blobs with mostly GPL code is far more open than all binary blobs.
The main problem with the GPL is that it gives rights over code to people who do not code.
No, it gives rights to whoever receives the code. As often as not, that's a coder. I write code and I use a lot of GPL software. I'm glad it's GPL.
But presently the GPL takes the rights away from the developer and gives them to people who don't even write code.
The only right anyone (not a developer, that has nothing to do with it---a distributor) has lost is the "right" to stop someone from looking at the code you've shipped.
The reason BSD license code is more popular is simply because it gives the rights to the developer to do what he wants with the code. It keeps it in the hands of the one who wrote it, not the one who uses it.
You can always do whatver you like with the code you write. Even if you release it nuder the GPL you still have the right to relicense it as you see fit because it's yours.
What you're actually saying is that the GPL doesn't allow you to take some code someone else wrote, modify it, then distribute it and stop people seeing it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
The Linux Kernel and Apache are good. Most GPLed stuff, particularly apps, are poor.
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.
So? The GP asserted that the code is low quality (it is not: Linux is about the highest performing kernel out there and GCC is about the best compiler out there).
In general the quality is low. Including GCC. LLVM is far better.
In general the quality is low. Including GCC. LLVM is far better.
Well, OK, now you're just making shit up. The GCC optimizer still outperforms the LLVM one, and GCC still has fewer internal compiler errors. I've been able to get reliable ICEs on LLVM in recent builds, and I've not seen one in years for GCC. LLVM was better for C++14 support, but gcc 5 has caught up. And GCC supports both more languages and more architectures. Not saying that LLVM is bad, it's not, but GCC is about the best compiler out there.
If you want to assert that gcc is low quality, you need to provide some very strong evidence because all the evidence out there is against you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Technically correct, but intentionally deceptive. A half truth is worse than a lie.
Technically true, because most software is crap. Intentionally deceptive because that GPL has nothing to do with it.
Except now you're going to claim that GPL'd apps are "worse" on averege than proprietary ones without a jot of evidence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What you're actually saying is that the GPL doesn't allow you to take some code someone else wrote, modify it, then distribute it and stop people seeing it.
No one should have any right to see the modifications and additions I make. It's that unreasonable virality, that is killing GPL.
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
GCC is low quality because it's a virtually unmaintainable mess of #ifdefs. It's being maintained by old hands because no-one new has a chance.
LLVM has a decent modular architecture. It's in a different league to crappy old GCC.
Sure GCC has accumulated more languages and targets over the years. But that's features, not quality. It's just a matter of time before LLVM has the non-obsoltete ones all covered.
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
Except now you're going to claim that GPL'd apps are "worse" on averege than proprietary ones without a jot of evidence.
You'd have to be very lacking in experience of software to not realise it. Pick pretty much any category of app and the best app is a commercial one for OSX or Windows.
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
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
That depends on the interfacing, and possibly also which legal arguments you listen to.
The FSF considers static or dynamic linking to create a derivative work, such that the whole has to be GPLed. Normally, as I understand it (IANAL), that would not be considered to make a derivative work, but if the only reason you can distribute the GPLed code is the GPL, there are legal arguments to use the GPL definitions.
If you run GPLed software and proprietary in separate processes, and use normal inter-process communications, then they are separate programs according to everybody. You can dynamically link LGPLed software and keep your proprietary software proprietary (supply the LGPL stuff as a DLL or whatever else your system uses, and include a written offer to get the source). Any static linking (or dynamic linking with GPLed software) is, as far as I know, undecided, and I've seen legal arguments either way (and I'm not claiming any expertise in evaluating these).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
there are legal arguments to use the GPL definitions.
(I'd go so far as to say there is a legal requirement, as the definitions exist within the license itself) and
If you run GPLed software and proprietary in separate processes, and use normal inter-process communications, then they are separate programs according to everybody.
However, dynamic vs static linking is version-dependent. To clarify, if you don't use a GPL-compatible license for your project, LGPL and GPLv1 allow linking, GPLv2 allows dynamic linking, GPLv3 allows no linking whatsoever. It's pretty explicit in the license and better explained in the GPL FAQ; I'd provide you a link, but it's probably better (for you) if you break yourself of your laziness and look it up for yourself.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Code running on a website, that is not distributed, need not be redistributable unless it's covered by the Affero GPL, which really isn't very popular. If it's GPLed code that you use and do not distribute, you don't have to give anything away.
Now, you are talking about selling the company. By selling the company, you're selling the GPLed code, which means you have to provide source code for what EMC gets. I don't know about EMC, but if you sell software like that to any company they're going to want the source. So, they have a copy of the binary, distributed legitimately, and they have a right to the source they doubtless demanded in the contract. They also have redistribution rights, but if they bought them like that they're going to want the copyright, which also gives redistribution rights. They're likely to specify in the contract that you destroy all your copies.
At this point, EMC owns some GPLed software, and as long as they don't distribute it they don't owe anybody any source or redistribution rights. If they use it themselves, that doesn't count as distributing. (Except in the case of AGPL, as I mentioned. Be leery of AGPL software.)
Alternatively, you go public, and your publicly held company now owns some GPLed software, with no requirement to distribute it.
I can't understand your penultimate paragraph. If you're saying that the original copyright owner, who licensed it under the GPL, can't sell you a proprietary license, you're wrong. MySQL released a GPLed database, and made lots of money selling proprietary licenses for it. RMS approved of the arrangement (see his remarks on the Sun-Oracle merge).
As far as your last paragraph goes, you've got dumb lawyers. RMS does not hate commercial software, only proprietary. Most developers would make their living if they were writing GPLed software, because most software development is for internal applications that don't distribute anything. Giving away code can be profitable under some circumstances: Apple, for example, profits by getting high-quality compilers to ship because they want more people developing for iOS and the Mac, and Apple's not trying to compete on the basis of having a better compiler than the next guy.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You'd have to be very lacking in experience of software to not realise it. Pick pretty much any category of app and the best app is a commercial one for OSX or Windows.
I'm going to pick my line of work.
So, on the compiler end, well, GCC outshines the rest. I have to use IAR Embedded Workbench for some of it, because the chip vendor I use only ships their library in IAR format. If you don't know it, it is Not Cheap(tm). Apparently it does optimization for size better than GCC. But OMFG have you ever used it :( The optimization for speed is not as good as GCC, it doesn't support C++14 or 11 well at all (gcc supports C++14 just fine on Atmel), and compared the IDE is lolzworthy. I mean seriously lolzworthy. It's funy using it on an old XP VM because I have the feeling it would fit best with NT4. Even the syntax higlighting is primitive and the editor doesn't even upport panes. Party like it's 1999, dude. Oh for fuck's sake the error messages too. God I have come to hate that compiler.
I would much rather be using GCC and vim any day. I miss undo trees. And C++14. and a general lack of what-the-fuckery.
On to PCB design. Well, I have a paid up copy of Eagle CAD. It seems OK, though I've been hearing very good things about KiCad recently. In fact the company which fabs my PCBs has actually recommended I make the switch. That's some pretty strong endorsement from a 100% professional perspective. Many of his customers have already made the switch. KiCAD certainly has some nicer features like push-routing which Eagle lacks. Mostly I haven't switched yet because all my land patterns are in Eagle and the thought of redoing them depresses me and fills me with fear. When this project goes to production, I'll switch. There are some much, much more expensive ones for, but my company can't afford them. Actually, come to think of it, neither can any other professionals I personally know. Anyway either way Eagle runs natively on Linux, so half your point doesn't apply.
In terms of general development and editing, you are right, the best isn't GPL'd. It's vim, of course which is at least OSS. Certainly not proprietary. Yes I have used VS. It's shit. Slow as all fuck, chews screen space like it's going out of fashion, crap support for C++11 and C++14, a weak optimizer, worse debugging options (oh sanatize is so nice!). The nicest thing about it is profiler, followed by the magical autocomplete, though that's a mixed bag, and that's available on OSS platforms now. The profiler is good though. Oh god and VS's build system :( :( :(. GNU Make is so much nicer.
Oh let's see what else. I ocasionally touch on web and back end stuff. LAMP is pretty dominant for good reasons.
Oh Browsers. Firefox all the way, certainly not commercial, and easily available for Linux. Better than the rest. I even use it on my phone now.
For documents, well, my current profession doesn't cover that (my previous profession did, and LaTeX was the clear winner and generally accepted across the board). I have few needs, which is covered admirably by google docs or LibreOffice depending on whether or not I need to do shared editing. Maybe MSWORD is better in some abstract sense, but LO has all the feature I ever use and many more.
Oh IRC. Yep, I hang out on a few channels on freenode based around professional things. Androud dev, bluetooth, that sort of thing. I rather like xchat. I don't think there are any better proprietary ones for OSX or Windows.
Well, the final one is MATLAB. That's pretty sweet. I don't have a licensed cpy at the moment, so I've been making do with Octave which is working pretty well. Matlab has more features, for sure. Octave have regularised the language without breaking compatibility, so oftn things are a bit nicer and a bit cleaner to write in Octave. Matlab has superior plotting for 3D, but octave has reached parity for 2D plots. Trying to get MATLAB working on a cluster on a private network even if
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No one should have any right to see the modifications and additions I make.
They don't.
But you don't have the right to use thier code either.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No, the only "with us or against us" is GPL. Proprietary and BSD can co-operate.
Having studied these licenses myself (I made two comments in the GPLv3 review process, one of which seems to have gone straight into a FAQ entry), I don't see anything in the licenses to support your claims. GPLv1 doesn't appear to address what a derivative work is, and GPLv2 doesn't address static vs. dynamic linking (or for that matter, linking vs. other forms of combination). The statements about linking have typically been in the FAQ. (The LGPL has always allowed linking, for obvious reasons.)
If you can point me to anywhere in the licenses that supports your claims, please do.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I swear I read something to that effect in the GPL FAQ as recently as last night. Looking at it again today, I must have been tripping pretty hard last night, though I don't know what I'd've been tripping on.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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
And people are exercising that right in droves. That's why GPL is losing out to BSD and other less viral licenses.
Ah, so GCC is low quality because reasons.
The fact that it's got a better optimizer, better support for OpenCL, more languages and fewer crashes don't count because you're on some sort of bizarre anti GPL crusade.
LLVM may very well be cleaner, but that doesn't make GCC low quality. I think, I have found the root cause of your understanding of the issue: you're an idiot. It's quite simple really.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So? That doesn't make the lies you spew about the GPL correct.
I do like how as soon as you're proven to be yet again making up lies about the GPL, you rapidly switch to something else. You seem to be bent on dishonesty as if you have some personal stake in trashing the GPL. Did Stallman run over your dog or something?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ah, so GCC is low quality because reasons.
Well if you want to deny reasons, you're clearly not open to debate.
LLVM may very well be cleaner, but that doesn't make GCC low quality.
I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. Quality is not equal to number of features. If it were, Microsoft would win with most of their apps.
I think, I have found the root cause of your understanding of the issue: you're an idiot.
And with that you've just shown you know you lost the argument.
I'm going to pick my line of work.
I'm glad you did. Because you've just illustrated why you have no appreciation of the uselessness of GPLed software to most people. You are neither a software developer, nor do you make much use of mainstream application categories. You are in a tiny niche that lies on the brink of commercial software having to be extremely expensive or not being economically feasible because there are so few users.
As it happens my brother is also in that tiny niche, and has been for 3 decades. And I know from conversations I've had with him that it's a mixed bag. Sometimes the best (or only) software for the task is open source, sometimes it's commercial but free of charge from chip companies, and sometimes it's very expensive commercial stuff.
But as I say it's pretty irrelevant to mainstream software developers, let alone to the majority of application categories.