Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I ought to distinguish between Apple and the people who started LLVM.

That's a bit tricky to do since Chris Lattner, essentially LLVM's
project leader, was already employed by Apple (who hired him because of
his work on LLVM) when he offered the patches for integrating Clang for
inclusion into GCC in 2005.

> I don't think the people who started LLVM had any bad intentions.  I
> apologize for using words that suggested they did.
>
> I just wish they had made sure Nvidia wouldn't be able to use their
> work to make a nonfree compiler.

You mean, like offering to contribute the LLVM code to the GNU project?
Without the GNU project being interested in their code, the project
retained the original free license from the university it started at.

Nobody has been shooting us in our foot but ourselves.  And if we want
to avoid repetition or deterioration, it might be a good idea to stop
grasping for scapegoats.

Perhaps the most insidious thing we can blame Apple for is not messing
with the goose laying free eggs.  Apple most definitely is one of the
worst offenders when it comes to curtailing user freedom.  But their
system tooling culture has become much more ambivalent since they moved
to a UNIX-like system base.

>   > But I believe you have asked in the interim that GCC not be made
>   > more modular out of fear of proprietary reuse of the front or back
>   > end.
>
> If you are talking about outputting ASTs, that has nothing to do with
> how modular GCC is.  This is a different issue.
>
> I want to make the right decision about the ASTs -- which means, think
> carefully and calmly about the issue.  Is that a bad thing to do?

It depends on the kind of decision resulting.  Basically, thinking a
year each about the kind of decision that comes up once a month is
indistinguishable from "no" regarding the net result.  That is a bad
thing to do because it does not change anything but still annoys people.
If the decision is not just one of its kind but rather a general
decision applicable to a whole class of followup decisions, it is a good
thing since it stops uncertainty from piling up.

At the current point of time, your dictum is that every matter related
to LLVM needs to be vetted with you and considered individually.  If you
state that you will not make any individual decision without thinking
carefully and calmly and without pressure about it, then this is a
likely recipe for trouble since a growing pile of unsolved problems and
people in want of answers are quite detrimental to being able to decide
calmly and without pressure.

-- 
David Kastrup