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: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87sir336qn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140301215057.GA19461@thyrsus.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 1393782138 16262 80.91.229.3 (2 Mar 2014 17:42:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:42:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: esr@thyrsus.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 02 18:42:28 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 1WKAPD-0001nz-Rn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 18:42:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36208 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAPD-0005to-Hv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58865) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAP9-0005sG-FI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAP8-0000zZ-7H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:23 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56260) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAP8-0000zT-3h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:22 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAP7-0002eg-FW; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:21 -0500 In-reply-to: <20140301215057.GA19461@thyrsus.com> (esr@thyrsus.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:170053 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] By mentioning just part of the situation, you've created the appearace that my decision backfired. Looking at the real goal we see it was successful. LLVM got off the ground because GCC, by policy, refused to provide interfaces that some toolmakers wanted. True. Note that I set this policy because the other choice would have immediately opened the door to nonfree compilers based on GCC. Consequently, those hackers exercised their freedom by going around GCC rather than through it. Yes, they did, and brought about part of the bad results I tried to avoid -- around 15 years later. We delayed them for 15 years! Not only that, but since Clang only handles C and C++, we have also reduced the scope of the bad results. We are still succeeding in preventing them for other languages. This was not a permanent total victory, sad to say, but it was a victory. It shows that my decision was right. Furthermore, they did not HAVE to release their program under a pushover license. Thus, there was a chance for an even greater partial victory. Over all, I made the right decision. Perhaps it could have been a little better. Generally, if you use the term "foolish" for people who are acting intelligently to pursue their own objectives rather than yours, you will mislead yourself and not affect them at all. If "people who" refers to the LLVM developers, it makes no difference since I'm not addressing them anyway. I'm talking to people working on the GNU Project about our goals. When I say that releasing LLVM in these circumstances was foolish, I mean that in terms of freedom as a goal. Of course there are people with other views. There may be some who think computers are satanic and programmers should be burned at the stake. But since we're talking about a GNU Project decision, what other views might imply is beside the point. -- 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.