Hacker News Reader

Comment by fleitz | Hacker News Reader

If this were true than clang would be considered free software by RMS...

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.

View on HN

Clang IS free software, and RMS agrees. The difference is that GCC discourages proprietary extensions and subsequent lockdown.

> I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom.

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).

Nope. The NCSA license is considered a free software license and is GPL compatible according to the FSF. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

That's fucking great, my uncle bob thinks it is too, but we're talking about RMS not the FSF.

Do you even know who Richard Stallman is?

Yes, I just imagined that despite his polemic nature there were still other people who could put up with dealing with him who also were part of the FSF and therefore the FSF could hold positions divergent from those of RMS.

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.

Generally speaking, the FSF and RMS agree. Nothing in the thread is inconsistent with this. RMS observes that the NCSA isn't copyleft, which is true, but that's a different dimension than free versus non-free.

But not different than free vs. open source.

"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'

Values and the question of whether a given license meets RMS's technical requirements for being free software are also two different metrics. He even explains that in this email. OSS puts an emphasis on the practical benefit of open source, whereas free software emphasizes the principle. And RMS never calls Clang nonfree in this email, he talks about nonfree derivatives of Clang.

So clang according to RMS is free as in freedom software that harms the free software movement because their unconcerned about freedom, rather than open source software that harms the free software movement because they are unconcerned about freedom.

I get you now, makes perfect sense.

Open source and Free software are essentially equivalent when it comes to licensing. The difference is in their motivation.

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.

There's a couple claims here:

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.

You're confounding issues here. RMS is in the position of a critic of the US government, rightly claiming that, while your country is "free", it installs and supports dictatorships all over the world. It is possible to be unfree, and not support other dictatorships, like Cuba.

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.

Except the the claim he is making is that free software is fundamentally different than open source.

"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)

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

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.

Interesting! The last time i looked, almost 100% of all compiled software of the linux-franchise was gcc-compiled, even a large portion of iOS and android software is gcc-compiled, and it doesn't stop there!

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...

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).

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.

The end users of gcc and clang are programmers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com