From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.gcc.devel Subject: Re: clang and FSF's strategy Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:07:12 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <8761pcq3pr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20140121201949.21DE1380522@snark.thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390349265 17025 80.91.229.3 (22 Jan 2014 00:07:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 22 01:07:51 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 1W5lME-0002E1-SV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:07:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32833 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5lME-0004rC-CQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:07:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44781) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5lM4-0004qu-Fc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:07:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5lLx-00033R-TS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:07:40 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:42191) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5lLx-00033N-N2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:07:33 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W5lLv-000259-KM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:07:31 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f444fe.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.68.254]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:07:31 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f444fe.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:07:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 86 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f444fe.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:VtGWazWxTduCI3mvWI66ZBaXGvM= 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:168858 gmane.comp.gcc.devel:134100 Archived-At: esr@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > David Kastrup's recent question on emacs-devel motivates me to bring > up a larger related question I've been meaning to open for a while: > Are the FSF's goals best served by continuing to technically restrict > GCC? I don't think that's even a sensible question. The point of the GPL is to promote expansion of Free Software, and the tool it uses for doing so is by covering licensing of "the work as a whole". When providing full technical capabilities for accessing the functionality of of program without creating a larger whole in the process, we are basically down to the LGPL. So most definitely the FSF's goals are best served by continuing to technically restrict GCC. If there is any question, the question is rather _what_ restrictions serve its interests more than it impedes them. Since any lifted restrictions cannot easily be reinstated, it makes sense to be conservative. > This is a question in which I have some positive stake. Yes, I > continue to be opposed to the FSF's style of propaganda exactly > because I think it hinders an end goal - a software ecosystem that is > open-source and user-controlled - that I agree with and have worked > hard to achieve. You are crossposting to two public project lists of the GNU project with inflammatory language and mischaracterizations. You have been involved with the GNU project long enough to be well aware that this kind of crowbar approach does not lead to much more than headlines about Free Software infighting. > The clang developers very carefully do *not* say that they aim to make > GCC obsolete and relegate it to the dustbin of discarded tech. Like most Free Software, GCC started out in a state where its technical competitiveness placed it in the dustbin. And that's a state the GNU project prefers over that of it being an enabling and seminal part of proprietary software "ecosystems". That's the reason GNU software is licensed under copyleft rather than permissive licenses, and the criterion of popularity should not render that choice irrelevant. There is leeway for making and balancing individual decisions according to individual tradeoffs. Your black-and-white and all-or-nothing rhetoric and confrontational style is not helpful for that. > Therefore, I point out that FSF can no longer prevent proprietary > vendors from plugging into a free compiler to improve their tools. And we could not prevent proprietary vendors from plugging into proprietary compilers to improve their tools, either. And things like Microsoft Visual C++ and the Intel compilers are quite competitive in technical respects. The only thing we ever have been able to prevent people to do is them plugging into _our_ free compiler. > That horse has left the barn; Lots of horses have left the barn. That's irrelevant as long as it is not the horse we are sitting on. > I also think it bears noticing that nobody outside of Microsoft seems > to particularly want to write proprietary compilers any more. Huh? Intel still writes proprietary compilers, basically every GPU vendor boosts his own proprietary compiler. > In some sense I don't really care who wins. Either GCC or clang will > serve my needs. I do prefer that both tools be as excellent as > possible. And it would be nice if the FSF were to demonstrate that it > can recognize changed conditions and move with the times. The whole point of the FSF was _not_ to "move with the times". If you would be willing to forego your popularity contest based approach, you might have a better chance of getting actual adjustments in the details. But at the core level, I see a fundamental miscomprehension about the contexts in which strong copyleft and the GNU project operate and make sense. As long as you don't come to terms with that, I don't see this discussion leading anywhere. And that's not even taking into account that key players tend to be less than amused about such a confrontational approach. -- David Kastrup