Except that's not true, at all. Those companies benefit greatly from releasing their changes, as they get help maintaining them and keeping them in sync with the rest of the codebase.
Do you realise that clang was created from scratch by Apple? They gave it away in the first place. You'd be pretty hard pressed to explain why it would be wrong for them to take it away again, and you'd also be hard pressed to explain why they would do that, when they were the ones who decided in the first place it should be open.
Well, it's not like it's a secret what happened. Apple was happy to use the GPL as long as it was GPL2. Once gcc went GPL3, they felt they could no longer contribute to or use the project because of unclear legal liabilities caused by the license.
So they decided to take the matter into their own hands, bought up LLVM, and created clang from scratch on top of it, and released the source openly because they know they benefit greatly from that.
In addition to what others said about the FSF discouraging the LGPL, it is also not allowed to statically link LGPL code to non-(L)GPL closed code. You can only link dynamically unless you provide full source.
To clarify, Apple is the upstream here. They created clang themselves, and they never needed to even launch it as an open source project. They did anyway, because there are huge and tangible benefits to doing so, and everybody gains from it.
Seems to me RMS does not actually believe that an open development model is better, since he feels the need to force people into it.
No, you wrote that for people who already knew whatever the hell it is you were going on about. Which is pretty pointless, since they already know.
I can't make head or tails of this summary. It's rambling gibberish. And I certainly have a three-digit IQ.
Learn how to write so that other people can actually understand you. That's your job. Leave the smug condescension for when you are actually capable of the fairly simple task of writing a summary.
Actually, no, it doesn't. A complete understanding of the C toolchain requires understanding of the parts that C leave implementation-defined, or sometimes even undefined. Those parts can be far more important than the things that are actually in the spec.
It is not a transmitter. It is a radar reflector. You illuminate them with a strong radar, and detect the signal they create in turn. That allows them to be small and have long range.
I work with plenty of people with that kind of degree or higher, and I doubt any of them could. Very few CS educations would teach you that. That is highly specialist knowledge, in an usual field.
I really don't know why you would ever think that would be a common skill.
In fact, Apple didn't just make contributions to clang, they started the whole project themselves, and released it openly once it was underway. LLVM they bought and funded after it had already been in existence for a while, but clang was their own thing entirely.
And now there are plenty of commercial companies throwing in contributions to it, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that's not true, at all. Those companies benefit greatly from releasing their changes, as they get help maintaining them and keeping them in sync with the rest of the codebase.
Do you realise that clang was created from scratch by Apple? They gave it away in the first place. You'd be pretty hard pressed to explain why it would be wrong for them to take it away again, and you'd also be hard pressed to explain why they would do that, when they were the ones who decided in the first place it should be open.
Well, it's not like it's a secret what happened. Apple was happy to use the GPL as long as it was GPL2. Once gcc went GPL3, they felt they could no longer contribute to or use the project because of unclear legal liabilities caused by the license.
So they decided to take the matter into their own hands, bought up LLVM, and created clang from scratch on top of it, and released the source openly because they know they benefit greatly from that.
I think you mean "Right, GCC libraries are GPL with an exception".
If they were GPL, he would be exactly right. That's why they need the exception.
In addition to what others said about the FSF discouraging the LGPL, it is also not allowed to statically link LGPL code to non-(L)GPL closed code. You can only link dynamically unless you provide full source.
To clarify, Apple is the upstream here. They created clang themselves, and they never needed to even launch it as an open source project. They did anyway, because there are huge and tangible benefits to doing so, and everybody gains from it.
Seems to me RMS does not actually believe that an open development model is better, since he feels the need to force people into it.
You realise clang exists pretty much exactly because people are moving away from the GPL3?
No, you can't do that. And that's not what the GPL3 protects against either, because you can't do that.
The result it that some software turns into a hand-out for companies that, in the long term, are trying to make free software disappear.
No company is trying to do that, especially not one that is relying on free software for their products.
So which is it: Do you oppose putting anybody in jail, or do you think freedom of movement isn't a fundamental right?
In a way, I do agree with his point; those making that sort of money from infringement do need to be punished properly.
You're behind on the trends. These days, making big money off the work of others makes you a hero. Just look at Kim Dotcom!
Yes bitcoin is unstable, it is also a very new technology. Things should stabilize as the currency matures.
It has grown by orders of magnitude, but it has not gotten any less unstable at all. Might almost have gotten more unstable.
Currency is by its very nature an arbitrary construct who's only value is what people agree to.
That doesn't mean that some agreements aren't more stable and reliable than others.
No, you wrote that for people who already knew whatever the hell it is you were going on about. Which is pretty pointless, since they already know.
I can't make head or tails of this summary. It's rambling gibberish. And I certainly have a three-digit IQ.
Learn how to write so that other people can actually understand you. That's your job. Leave the smug condescension for when you are actually capable of the fairly simple task of writing a summary.
Actually, no, it doesn't. A complete understanding of the C toolchain requires understanding of the parts that C leave implementation-defined, or sometimes even undefined. Those parts can be far more important than the things that are actually in the spec.
He got you, didn't he? I'd call that a success.
He's a developer, not a community relations representative.
Then why is asking for donations? That seems like the job of a community relations representative, I am fairly sure...
Maybe your OS is just using the wrong subpixel rendering for your display type.
It is not a transmitter. It is a radar reflector. You illuminate them with a strong radar, and detect the signal they create in turn. That allows them to be small and have long range.
This is quite many levels beyond little k-maps.
I work with plenty of people with that kind of degree or higher, and I doubt any of them could. Very few CS educations would teach you that. That is highly specialist knowledge, in an usual field.
I really don't know why you would ever think that would be a common skill.
In fact, Apple didn't just make contributions to clang, they started the whole project themselves, and released it openly once it was underway. LLVM they bought and funded after it had already been in existence for a while, but clang was their own thing entirely.
And now there are plenty of commercial companies throwing in contributions to it, too.
Remember, http://buttcoin.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/buttcoin-infograph.png
This is the only sane answer. They probably only asked to find out if you happened to know.
Say you don't know, and let them look at the code to figure it out.
Or, you know, they asked so they wouldn't need to duplicate work that has already been done, in case they had it figured out already.