

Stallman calls LLVM "A Terrible Setback" - mindcrime
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU4MjA

======
jejones3141
So, is the following an accurate description of the situation? 1\. gcc is
kludged to preclude use in non-free software. 2\. llvm's design is modular and
doesn't preclude such use. 3\. In RMS's opinion, a politically motivated
kludge is to be preferred.

~~~
dalke
If you believe in software freedom for all users, then it is immoral to
distribute proprietary software or enable others to do so. In that case it's
not a kludge, it's a design feature to make it harder for others (eg,
"software hoarders") to be immoral, and your points are incorrect.

If you believe in software freedom for all developers, so they can do whatever
they want to do with your code, then yes the gcc design is horrible and your
points are correct.

The choice of viewpoint is based on one's politics and ethics, even if isn't
explicitly stated. You apparently don't believe in software freedom for all
users, so you interpret RMS's objections as being "politically motivated."

But by the same token, clang has made a deliberate choice to not protect user
freedom, which can just as easily be interpreted as a politically motivated
decision.

~~~
jejones3141
Hmmm... then what distinguishes that design feature from DRM?

~~~
dalke
Ummm, lots of things? To start with, access to the source code, the legal
ability to modify and redistribute said code, and no requirement for
permission renewals from someone else.

What gives you the idea that this is anything like DRM?

Given the long history of spin-offs like gcc-xml (which started in 2000),
there's nothing which prevents you from adding this design yourself. This is a
social contract issue, not a legal one.

------
jonrx
I was first introduced to the free software philosophy when I saw Dr. Stallman
at a conference in a local university. Even though I often find his positions
a little too "cut-throat", I must admit he's very stable in his argumentation.

"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely
because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree
compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary
software as much as it helps us."

As unpopular as it may sound, I think we need such opinions. He has a set of
values and tries to defend them. While it may sometimes not be pretty, it's
all part of a healthy debate.

~~~
olgeni
A healthy debate requires viable alternatives, that is, LLVM. Doesn't look
like a setback to me.

------
csense
Stallman made the same argument about Java bytecode back when it was the cool
low-level cross-platform compatibility layer.

[1]
[http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html](http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html)

------
mdomans
There's no other way I can comment this.

~~~
mindcrime
The thing is, he's not actually wrong. Not _IF_ you share the same _values_ as
Stallman, where "software freedom" is the most primal and important value /
goal of all. If you don't share his values, then this statement seems absurd,
of course. But he does have a point, even if one chooses to disagree with him.

(note: just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not a GNU/FSF hardliner. In
fact, I use the ALv2 for most of my open source code.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> The thing is, he's not actually wrong. Not IF you share the same values as
> Stallman, where "software freedom" is the most primal and important value /
> goal of all.

That's unquestionably true, if you share Stallman's particular view that the
important part of "software freedom" is its negative aspect -- that is, the
_absence of non-Free software_ , not its positive aspects, the _availability
for use of Free software_.

If you value the same freedoms the FSF embraces _but_ prioiritize positive
software freedom more than negative software freedom, its a lot less clear
that a LLVM's Free-but-easier-to-use-with-or-in-non-Free-systems nature
actually harms software freedom rather than enhancing it.

~~~
mindcrime
_If you value the same freedoms the FSF embraces but prioiritize positive
software freedom more than negative software freedom, its a lot less clear
that a LLVM 's Free-but-easier-to-use-with-or-in-non-Free-systems nature
actually harms software freedom rather than enhancing it._

Agreed.

