Though, the point is, you can make free software work the way you want or work better. You're _allowed_ to. That isn't necessarily the case with other software; that is the point of free software.
This is a purely political decision: RMS wants gcc not only to be free software but he also wants it to be unusable to create non-free derivatives thus making it an active tool in furthering free software. clang undermines this because you can create non-free software based on it thus making it a tool that can easily be used to restrict freedom.
It seems that implicit in this claim is that if non-free software exists, its mere existence restricts freedom. Would that be a fair statement of anybody's position in this debate, or have I gone off the rails?
Will the threat itself restrict freedom? Yes. Can threats cause harm? yes. However, so long its not distributed, no one is threatened.
So, on your question, no, its mere existence will not restricts freedom. The restriction happens once it has been distributed.
> They have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree.
> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well.
> If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom.
> 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
Sorry about the charismatic way I presented my views, perhaps I should have mentioned my penchant for eating the raw uncooked flesh of freshly slain animals to make it more clear as to whether I was intending to advocate views similar to Hitler.
You may want to look into these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion
If there was any persuasion in it, it was to not use irrelevant association since it do not add anything beyond a appeal to emotion, spun around a fallacy. Hitler, like George Bush, creates a guilt by association while the association is irrelevant tied to the subject matter.
The result thus becomes a polite discussion around the more creative ways of eating meat.
We could debate forever on the semantics of which is more free, but I don't think having the freedom to restrict the freedoms of others is going to encourage freedom.
Interesting that preventing users from doing something with a bit of software (e.g. selling non-free derivatives) is considered restricting freedom.
Kind of self evident when stated from the users point of view really.
I use gcc, and I work as a treesurgeon.
My freedom to swing my fist stops at the tip of your nose; my freedom to modify legalese surrounding GPL software stops when it would deprive others of their "four essential freedoms" (in the words of the FSF).
0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
If you don't believe that these are important and should be respected, then you shouldn't be licensing things under the GPL. If you believe these are more important than the restriction imposed, then releasing under a permissive license is not itself "restricting freedom", but all it is doing (compared to the GPL) is enabling "restricting freedom". When the only thing a change does is make a bad thing possible, it's still better not to make that change.
I find it somewhat interesting we have no viral license that protects freedom 0 and 1 in derivative works but allows adding additional restrictions that conflict with 2 and 3 (or don't, which would make it GPL compatible...).
There is more to RMS's version of 'freedom' than just being able to modify the code, the AGPL is a great example of this.
Actually he doesn't....he considers Clang/LLVM to be open source and not free, Clang/LLVM does not restrict users from developing their own extensions and licensing them as they see fit which ironically makes the software not free (according to the RMS ideological software freedom purity test).
If the FSF consists solely of the opinions of RMS then I retract the previous statement and would say that the page mentioned expresses an opinion inconsistent with what is expressed in the email.
"The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal."
Clang wants to make a great compiler, they chose the NCSA license to facilitate that, according to the article makes it open source software and not 'free software' rather than 'unfree software'
I get you now, makes perfect sense.
So when RMS says that, he's saying Clang/LLVM opened up the source code in order help their software perform better and see wider usage. Whereas RMS's goal for GCC is to ensure freedom for its users. Technical superiority is great, but it is not the goal, and may be sacrificed if necessary to achieve that goal.
He's not saying Clang isn't free software, he's saying their ultimate goal is not freedom, as contrasted with the FSF.
1) Free means freedom in the copyleft sense.
2) Free means freedom in the open source sense.
3) Free means free as in beer.
In the article RMS appears to be using definition 1, elsewhere on the FSF site the FSF uses 2.
"In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the users of computing. The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal."
It's very clear that "free software" in the article is definition 1, since MIT/BSD falls clearly in category 2, LLVM/Clang is NOT free software according to the definitions used in the article, and therefore the position RMS is advocating in the article is that LLVM/Clang is not free software, but rather open source software.
Yes to everyone else in the world, including the FSF, Clang/LLVM is free software but according to RMS it is not.
It is possible to be both unfree, and support dictatorships, like the USSR. RMS's goal with GCC, is to be like the mythical free country that also supports freedom and discourages dictatorships elsewhere in the world.
In other words, your software can be free, and yet support and aid those who would take your freedom away. This is the claim RMS is making of Clang.
"The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal."
Perhaps you could provide quotes where RMS in the article says that clang is 'free software'. According to RMS in the article clang is a major set back for free software. (because it's better than their piece of crap)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
clang is "free software" according to his own definition. It is entirely possible for a specific free software program to be a setback to the goals of the free software movement. His position is that copyleft licenses (very often, and certainly in this specific case) advance the goal of freedom more effectively than non-copyleft licenses. The differing values in this case basically amounts to whether one considers it worth using a copyleft license to ensure that the software being used remains free, or whether one considers it a drawback that a copyleft license may prevent it being used in proprietary software.
Furthermore which compiler-suite served as so long so good in the "dark" pre-LLVM ages?
Biting the hand, which feeds you comes to mind...
This restricts users freedom, that is his point.
GPL is not about the rights of the programmer, it is about the rights of the end user.