Re: lldb support

[Stefan Huchler <stefan.huchler@mail.de>]

John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:

> I understand believing that "GNU everywhere" could increase freedom due to the
> nature of the GPL, but now it starts to sound a lot more like "freedom to use
> what the FSF thinks you should use", rather than real freedom -- especially
> when the FSF's choices are less capable than other free alternatives.

Not including something does not limit choices in my mind? Everybody is
free in forking something or write a extension. But thats just my 2
cents on that.

So I think it should be watched more from a gain and loss
perspective. Like you would discuss other features. So what would be the
harm and what the gain.

The gain is that maybe more people use Emacs? I doubt that somebody uses
emacs because of that feature or not, either you love emacs or you hate
it, there is not much room between that. But maybe I am wrong here.

But lets say a few use emacs then, and send maybe patches or write
packages for it.

The negative is that maybe some users will use lldb instead of gdb, and
send patches for lldb instead of gdb. Therefor lldb will be more
usefull, and some companies that make proprietary software will not only
profit from it, they could even sell proprietary extensions to it?

Something like that? I mean companies could and shurly do use also gdb
to develop proprietary software, so its more about the proprietary
extensions.

Isnt that the core conflict between the opensource movement and the free
software movement? That you care about such stuff, while the opensource
movement only want better tools and a more productive development system?

Or why does the gpl exist in the first place if its just replacable and
the same as such public domain like bsd lisense?