From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:20:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87egpwrbp9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87mw4rxkzv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <874mqvf4dj.fsf@panthera.terpri.org> <87sieeru2k.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423651340 12446 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2015 10:42:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Helmut Eller , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 11 11:42:14 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 1YLUkG-0000y9-BQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:42:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44072 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLUkF-0001cu-Le for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:42:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37535) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLUhJ-0005gz-0F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:39:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLUhH-0003eD-N4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:39:08 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLUhH-0003e6-Js for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:39:07 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57513 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLUhA-0000bs-C4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:39:00 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B5EEE0CE0; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:20:50 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:49:25 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:182872 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > [[[ 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. ]]] > > > > There is absolutely nothing the LLVM team could do more other than > > > assigning all of their copyrights to the FSF in order to hand over > > > licensing and development control. > > David is right. The license of LLVM is free. We can use that code > if we want to. > > The problem that LLVM causes for the GNU Project is that, when used, > it replaces GCC with a non-copylefted program. Which means that proprietary forks become possible. However, I think we would do well to view the consequences of that danger in detail. While GNU and GCC provide us with a stronghold entirely under our control, reigns are not restricted to a stronghold. I think we would be better off distinguishing between LLVM as an ally neither under our control nor protection, and parties like Nvidia who forge proprietary variants and tools from LLVM. It would be comparatively easy to make a campaign "don't buy from the unfreeloaders", for example, that highlights the consequences of tieing yourself to those who "unfreeload", namely create proprietary tools from non-copylefted free software. The damage they cause to their users is real and tangible, and yet instead of making a campaign from pointing that out, we consider LLVM the source of badness. Here is how the damage is real and tangible as one example: I had bought one used Thinkpad T61 with some Intel or AMD graphics card, making sure I got no Nvidia, for my work. When its fan broke down, another user of GNU LilyPond provided me with the same laptop model, but with an Nvidia card inside. What are the consequences? The drivers are now no longer free (either that, or of rather low quality because Nvidia provides neither work nor specs). Since this laptop is in its "second life" (the GNU/Linux system requirements are quite lower than "up-to-date" Windows would demand, so the hardware remains perfectly usable), continuing support from Nvidia is at best lacklustre. Half of the time I hibernate the computer, it won't wake up again. I always have to put it to sleep instead if I want to continue to work. That means that the batteries have to be loaded whenever I stop working for longer, detracting from its battery life. Even when put to sleep, in about 1 case out of 20 it will not wake up. Previously, I used the space-efficient i586 runtime while running on an amd64 kernel. That way, I was able to compile and test 64bit executable (using special gcc options) even while most of my system remained 32bit. The Nvidia graphics drivers were unable to deal with that setup, meaning that I can no longer use that setup for my computer. And it is impossible for the kernel developers to fix this breakage. If you see in comparison that just recently Linus Torvalds refrained from removing EISA bus support from current Linux kernels because there was a user piping up who still needed them, it is clear that the non-free driver policy renders your hardware deficient from the start and it seriously devalues its resale value when continued support and free operating system compatibility become important. So we really, really, really should make sure to spread the message that the hardware from vendors creating unfree and partly secret toolchains and drivers is crippling its users from the start, and is destroying the resale value of used hardware because of planned or tolerated early obsolescence. The more we point this out, the more it will actually show itself to make a difference in resale price of hardware, and ultimately in sales price of hardware. I think it is much more important, relevant and effective for us to fight the non-free misuse of LLVM for subverting user freedom than fighting LLVM itself. One feature of the GPL is that it saves us from making the case for Free Software: it replaces proselytizing with a reward: for staying within the GPL universe, you get to use the GPL universe. With LLVM, we have to turn to proselytizing again. But I don't see that it makes sense to proselytize against non-copylefted free software since that is not our actual enemy: what the GNU project and the GPL fight is non-free software, not non-copylefted software. Instead we need to proselytize against non-free software and its bad effects, and point them out again and again. If people get sensitized against the damage non-free software is causing them again and again, _this_ might cause a community eventually to consider transferring to a copylefted software scheme. But us vilifying them will not in any manner incite them to join our ranks on the side of free software that is protected by copyleft. -- David Kastrup