From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: clang/emacs/ecb/semantic Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:42:27 -0800 Message-ID: <50BC0383.30208@dancol.org> References: <20940A983D814C6192ABFF2B7A269A88@gmail.com> <87wqx42nag.fsf@yandex.ru> <87ehjcrw70.fsf@engster.org> <87hao816w4.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87hao7ioos.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <87zk1yhib2.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <50BAE369.2030503@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC2D2C96D1F02684DF118A85F" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354498979 1990 80.91.229.3 (3 Dec 2012 01:42:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 01:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: pjb@informatimago.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 03 02:43:11 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TfL3v-0003yo-4b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 02:43:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49117 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfL3j-0003LP-FY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:42:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46213) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfL3g-0003L5-4o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:42:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfL3f-0008AE-11 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:42:56 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:40327) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TfL3c-00089H-UJ; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:42:53 -0500 Original-Received: from c-76-22-66-162.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([76.22.66.162] helo=[192.168.1.2]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TfL3a-0006sN-Jp; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:42:50 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:155189 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC2D2C96D1F02684DF118A85F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/2/12 4:02 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > That's absurd. Software freedom should never be at odds with > interoperability. Freedom and trust are inseparable. You can't use > free software to make paternalistic decisions about non-free softwa= re > for the user. >=20 > We use the GNU GPL to make sure that our code is not included in > nonfree programs that violate users' freedom. We develop software as > a campaign for freedom, and recognizing that some people might try to > include it in nonfree combinations, we use copyleft to stop them. >=20 > This is what we are doing here. If you think standing up for freedom > is "paternalistic", you don't have to participate. We must consider utilitarian calculus; that is, we must choose the actions will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. By choosing to limit gcc's potential for interoperability, its developers have limited the number of users who can benefit from the good provided by gcc's freedom. gcc's monolithic design hinders integration of free and non-free software alike. It's equally impractical to integrate a GPLv3 system (like Emacs) with gcc and to integrate a EULA-encrusted tool with gcc; thus, gcc did not (and to a large extent, does not) meet legitimate user needs. The Clang developers met this pent-up demand and found tremendous support: if current trends continue, there will be more Clang users than gcc users. I know you argue that software freedom is not a market, but if that's true and user counts don't matter, why work on free software at all? Users matter because software cannot suffer. The only freedom that matters is freedom that real people enjoy. We should show the world that need be no choice between programs that are free and programs that are useful. While it is true that a hypothetical modular gcc could be integrated with non-free parts (e.g., a proprietary IDE or a proprietary back-end), the GPL would force developers of the non-free components in the system to communicate with this modular gcc over well-defined protocols, making it easily to substitute free components for the proprietary ones. On the other hand, while Clang itself is free software, Clang's permissive licensing makes it practical to tightly couple free and non-free components of a system together into inscrutable monoliths, and any free replacement for one of these monoliths would have to be built from scratch. Additionally, Clang's permissive licensing will eventually encourage the development of non-free extensions, derivatives, and machine-target back-ends for Clang itself, leading to ecosystem fragmentation and significant impairment of end-user freedom. gcc's users howled for certain features, and for a very long time, gcc's developers ignored these pleas for fear that the needed features might somehow aid proprietary software. In the end, this stubbornness merely drove users to non-copyleft software that actually met their needs. The people who blocked needed gcc features didn't stand up for software freedom: actually, they neglected it. > What is clear is that you hate copyleft so much that you would relish > our defeat simply to replace a copylefted program with a noncopylefted > one. If that is how you feel about the GNU Project, you are entitled > to your views, of course, but don't state them on this list. I'm disappointed to see you resort to an ad hominem attack against someone who largely shares your positions and goals. From you, of all people, I expected more nuance. I "hate" copyleft and free software about as much as you do, and it troubles me that you've interpreted our minor difference of opinion as major malice on my part. Throughout history, a hallmark of a troubled organization has the characterization of loyal dissent as treason. It saddens me to see this phenomenon here. --------------enigC2D2C96D1F02684DF118A85F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlC8A4MACgkQ17c2LVA10VuwDQCeKOLCE7If0+6Aj3aipTnDnlh3 TR0AniKWf/HyxHTzLfwNJCOnJk/zNQgA =Co0L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC2D2C96D1F02684DF118A85F--