From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: clang vs free software Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:12:43 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <871tzvatec.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87fvqtg02v.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <52D81960.2080408@yandex.ru> <52DA8C17.4080707@yandex.ru> <52DC00E5.3020803@yandex.ru> <52DC6A26.3020003@yandex.ru> <87k3dv9z85.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87eh439w1n.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ha8yqvup.fsf@engster.org> <87r47zezcc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390734789 25637 80.91.229.3 (26 Jan 2014 11:13:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:13:09 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 26 12:13:15 2014 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 1W7NeN-00059E-Kc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:13:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54199 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7NeN-0006uu-5F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:13:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35804) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7NeD-0006tx-Hu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:13:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Ne6-00071L-2n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:13:05 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43282) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Ne5-00071F-Nh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:12:57 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Ne3-00051n-SN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:12:55 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f52277.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.245.34.119]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:12:55 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f52277.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:12:55 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 109 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f52277.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:D2BxUIuVXRAHgBZSnS2Rno7LPek= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:169113 Archived-At: Helmut Eller writes: > On Sun, Jan 26 2014, Richard Stallman wrote: > >> Maybe nobody bothers because using clang is easier than to fight with >> FSF policies. >> >> If you mean the policy that we don't let GCC become a platform for >> proprietary compilers, what does it mean to think of this as something >> to "fight"? > > With "fight" I mean explaining for the hundredth time that the FSF > policy of introducing artificial technical hurdles to prevent some > nonfree programs does Since the whole point of the GPL is to introduce an "artificial hurdle" preventing turning code into proprietary programs, and since it works, according to the copyright laws it relies on, by covering works "as a whole", any technical measures intended to provide an interface that separates components into separate identifiable wholes have an effect on the range of the GPL. The GPL introduces restrictions, and making those restrictions be part of an overall strategy requires making decisions that take into account the reach of those restrictions. That's not artificial. It's an inherent consequence of the approach taken by the GPL that we'll be explaining and weighing consequences for the hundredth and the thousandth time since the whole purpose of the GPL is to execute a measure of control over the consequences. > a) cause more "collateral damage" than it prevents real damage. This does not get any more true by repeating it the thousandth time. If you take a look at something like MacOSX, it is a largely closed-down system used for restricting user freedom, and its operating system basis is BSD UNIX. This is a real and lasting damage to the freedom of software users, and Apple has been handed the power to keep doing this damage by the undiscriminating licensing of BSD derivatives. Most compilers for special processors like GPUs are kept locked down, denying the freedom of users to work with their hardware according to their own problems. They also deny the freedom of other hardware vendors to study and learn from the code and improve on the design of both hard- and software, thus advancing the field in a manner where the advances are available to everyone. Yes, the mechanisms of the GPL works through restrictions, and restrictions apply to everyone. That is why we have to vet our technical decisions against the purpose of the GPL and the respective effects of the restrictions all the time. [...] > IMO, we would be better served with legal hurdles than with technical > hurdles. It is wishful thinking that one can be separated from the other. Copyright covers copyrightable entities, and entities are determined mostly by technical designs and decision. > E.g. the license could say that using GCC as platform for proprietary > compilers (DragonEgg) are not allowed, while using GCC as platform for > free compilers (or editors like Emacs) is allowed and welcome. No, that is absolutely one thing that the license could not say. Whatever is not prohibited by default by copyright is _nothing_ that we have any power to enforce. The GPL is not a contract, it is a license. It spells out the conditions under which the full restrictions granted by copyright will get waived. It is not in our power to add additional restrictions. Running a program that you legally acquired, for any purpose whatsoever, is your default right. It may be easy to forget given all the fairy tale restrictions big vendors place into their "licenses" that are actually contracts with various mechanism for purported agreement, but that's not how licenses work. Licenses are permissions. > (Clang/LLVM is free software, as far as I can tell. So discouraging > integration of Clang with Emacs has probably not so much to do with a > free/nonfree distinction but more with a gnu/nongnu distinction.) It has nothing to do with free/nonfree with regard to the use itself. What it has to do with is with encouraging solutions that are clearly not trying to be a _sustainable_ source of freedom. It's worse in that respect than FreeBSD/NetBSD and similar since _those_ are at least currently driven by communities that are, for better or worse, fighting for _their_ kind of freedom. In contrast, a lot of the substantial support for Clang comes from parties who are rather interested in having an upstream available that can be convenient for their kind of unfreedom. That's an area that we don't want GCC to compete in. So we want to make our technical decisions in a manner where we don't open GCC up for integration into a market of proprietary tools, and that means that it's not possible to take the technical measures where GCC can be used as an entirely separate and independently licensed component for free solutions, either. That's a balancing act, and the question is not whether to do that balancing act (we would not have the GPL if we had not answered that question with "yes") but how. And it's rather exasperating if people keep pretending that nobody has thought about this before and that they have the better answers rendering decades of painstaking legal and technical work redundant. -- David Kastrup