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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:01:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvn0senq.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8761nusb90.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87vbkovhh7.fsf@engster.org> <87387rvobr.fsf@engster.org> <83ppat84hk.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106143933.0090bc83@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3v77ij6.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106154539.3d0752c4@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87wq4ype3z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20150108083211.5a85a077@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1420761790 562 80.91.229.3 (9 Jan 2015 00:03:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, dak@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, deng@randomsample.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 09 01:03:03 2015 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 1Y9N1n-00051O-1O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 01:02:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48582 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9N1m-0007Np-G5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:02:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55136) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9N1D-0007IA-7d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:01:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9N17-00014O-3r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:01:35 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9N17-00014B-0y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:01:29 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9N15-0003Dm-74; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:01:27 -0500 In-reply-to: <20150108083211.5a85a077@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> (perry@piermont.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:181078 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. ]]] > I can think of a half dozen projects at the University of > Pennsylvania (my university), VeLLVM, Ironclad C++, and my own work > on C safety being just three, where no one used GCC as a platform > specifically because of the more open architecture in LLVM. This is very unfortunate, but I don't know that anything can be done about it. LLVM is a real technical step forward, yoked to a step backward in defending our freedom. If it were just the former, I would be enthusiastic for it. However, the latter is more important, so we must do our best to resist it, even temporarily. > The long term result of all of this may very well be to do exactly the > opposite of what you want -- to convince compiler researchers that > LLVM is the only serious platform for their work, Why do you say "may very well be"? According to your previous paragraph, they are already convinced, so there is no way to make that any worse. and even worse, to > convince developers in general that free software is too hard to use > and that non-free software is the way for them to get their work done. I cannot follow you there. Which non-free software are you talking about? Could there be a misunderstanding here? LLVM is free software. It is undefended by copyleft, ideal for Apple to make it proprietary. That's why it is a big step backwards. Nonetheless the version that the researchers work on is free. So I don't see how they could derive the conclusion you suggest. You think to make me stop resisting by telling me resistance is useless, that what I am defending is lost. At the same time, you are telling me that my efforts to defend it really endanger it. (Those two can't both be true.) What this says to me is that you might be exaggerating how bad things are in the aim of convincing me. I will read the second part of your message later. -- 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.