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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:35:43 +0100 Message-ID: <87k2zpsxcg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87mw4rxkzv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <874mqvf4dj.fsf@panthera.terpri.org> <87sieeru2k.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87oap2rq9o.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423575363 858 80.91.229.3 (10 Feb 2015 13:36:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Helmut Eller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 10 14:35:57 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 1YLAyq-0003ou-HC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:35:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39854 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLAyq-0007Bb-0S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:35:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40686) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLAyg-0007BE-GP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:35:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLAyf-0007pd-5u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:35:46 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55771) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLAye-0007pM-4I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:35:44 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34714 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLAyd-0007QG-N1; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:35:43 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A301E0514; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:35:43 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Helmut Eller's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:45:10 +0100") 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:182799 Archived-At: Helmut Eller writes: > On Tue, Feb 10 2015, David Kastrup wrote: > >> It is not speculation but nonsense. LLVM is already released under >> GPL compatible terms. They _are_ already giving us permission for >> all we could ask of them. > > They are also giving NVIDIA permission to do whatever it likes to do > with it. > >> You can make a GPL-only release of LLVM today if you >> want to. This "they could say that they prefer to help NVIDIA than to >> help the FSF" is a load of bollocks. > > A hypothetical GNU LLVM project that is distinct from the original > project would have a hard time to attract people. And whose fault is that? Why would people be interested in a fork whose primary purpose would be to make the compiler less modular and stop it from interoperating with modules they might want to write? Because non-modularity is exactly what GCC is supposed to provide in order not to create module boundaries where the reach of the GPL ends. The current LLVM licensing, community, and architecture does not provide that temptation. >> What else do you want? > > I, as an individual, don't care. But the FSF does care very much > about the distinction between the licenses. If the FSF stops caring > about the distinction then it can just declare defeat and stop > promoting the GPL. The LLVM is licensed GPL-compatibly. >> Tell them to dissolve their own community and commit ritual suicide? > > Changing the license would hardly be suicide. It would most definitely cause a fork. And since the community focuses on modularity and our compilers must not provide modularity, it would indeed require taking out the majority of developers to cause enough of a break of continuity for the GNU project to step up. At any rate, Chris Lattner _had_ offered integrating LLVM into GCC in 2005. He did all of the integration work and offered completed patches. These patches were rejected. Partly because bootstrapping from C++ was undesired (GCC now bootstraps from C++), partly because the modularity was undesired in GCC. Modularity is the main point of LLVM. Chopping it away in order to slap on a GPL that actually stings is pretty much the same as ritual suicide. I=A0doubt we'll persuade the whole developer community to do that. > Apple could still be the main contributor and they managed to survive > even when they had to use GCC. It would piss off NVIDIA but it might > attract some other individuals who don't like the idea that NVIDIA > profits from their contributions. Either way, you don't make those > decisions. For better or worse, a lot of decisions _have_ been made, _by_ the GNU project. These decisions had consequences with companies and individuals seeking their own solutions for problems that the GNU project considered too dangerous to approach. The current situation is not the outcome of a coordinated attack against the GNU project but rather the most obvious and natural consequence of our own actions, and it's time that we started to deal with the consequences of our actions in a graceful and mature and most particularly not self-destructive manner. --=20 David Kastrup