From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: clang/emacs/ecb/semantic Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:15:55 -0500 Message-ID: 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> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354421763 32330 80.91.229.3 (2 Dec 2012 04:16:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 04:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Pascal J. Bourguignon" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 02 05:16:15 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 1Tf0yR-0005Sy-2L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 05:16:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40453 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tf0yF-0001Mg-Ft for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:15:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59368) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tf0yD-0001Mb-FT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:15:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tf0yC-00076m-Ia for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:15:57 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55144) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tf0yC-00076g-Eq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:15:56 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tf0yB-0001k2-D0; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:15:55 -0500 In-reply-to: <87zk1yhib2.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> (pjb@informatimago.com) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:155168 Archived-At: 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