Re: clang/emacs/ecb/semantic

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    Wouldn't have been better to accept gcc-xml and have gcc cover 99% of
    the "market", rather than rejecting it, and eventually have gcc left
    with only 10% of the mind share, and clang/llvm 90%?  I'm afraid this
    might end like that.

We do not look at software users as a market.  Our goal is something
more than popularity.  What matters is users' freedom, and copyleft as
a weapon to defend it with.  GCC vs LLVM is important mainly as an instance
of fighting for copyleft.

    Would a good alternative (for freedom) to be that free compilers (GPL)
    provide the exact formal grammar they parse, so that tool builders could
    use it to write compatible parsers to use in their tools?

If "tool builders could use it to write compatible parsers to use in
their tools", is that good or is it bad?  You seem to think it is
always good.  I think it is good if the tools are free, and bad if the
tools are nonfree.  Nonfree tools (like any nonfree programs) are an
injustice.

Part of the reason why clang/llvm weakens our commnity, compared with
GCC, is that the clang front ends can feed their data to nonfree tools.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call