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: clang vs free software Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:45:27 +0100 Message-ID: <87wqhmajjs.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87fvqtg02v.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <52DA8C17.4080707@yandex.ru> <52DC00E5.3020803@yandex.ru> <52DC6A26.3020003@yandex.ru> <87k3dv9z85.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87eh439w1n.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ha8yqvup.fsf@engster.org> <87r47zezcc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <52E448A0.6010405@dancol.org> <87a9ejb5rz.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <52E4FBD8.3020407@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390747642 24516 80.91.229.3 (26 Jan 2014 14:47:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 26 15:47:30 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 1W7Qzh-0005Ag-62 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:47:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54920 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Qzg-0005zW-O5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:47:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60459) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Qzc-0005xw-SW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:47:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Qzb-0005BT-IS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:47:24 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:60348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Qzb-0005BP-F3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:47:23 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39286 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7Qza-0006Bf-NC; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:47:23 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D7ADE0538; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:45:27 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <52E4FBD8.3020407@dancol.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:13:12 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (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:169120 Archived-At: Daniel Colascione writes: > On 01/25/2014 10:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> It has been explained to you what the rationale behind making GCC >> unsuitable as a black box component of parsing solutions is: there is no >> point in licensing GCC under the GPL if we pull the basic teeth the GPL >> has by allowing integration into a larger whole without having to obey >> the GPL. >> >> An adequate reaction to that would be to see what technical >> possibilities there are for making GCC support the use cases you have in >> mind without throwing it wide open, rendering its licensing choice >> useless. >> >> Instead, you ignore the reasons you have been given and choose to throw >> a tantrum. This will not serve to achieve anything but leave everybody >> more annoyed. > > The previous three paragraphs demonstrate succinctly why effort and > attention have shifted away from GCC and toward LLVM. The latter > system provides utility and none of the sanctimony. Quite like an Apple iPhone provides utility and none of the sanctimony. The purpose of the GNU project is not to serve as many people as possible at a given point of time but to ensure the continued availability of Free Software to its users, those that care about it. There will be people who don't care about it. They may or may not use Free Software for other reasons, and they are free to do so. But the principal target of Free Software are those who care about software being and remaining free, not those who care foremost about convenience. > It allows users to accomplish their goals instead of hearing > complaints that their goals are politically incompatible with the > software. If you choose not to listen, you can at least refrain from misrepresentation. What happens here is that users are told that their requirements are not easily met while ensuring at the same time that work built based on this software will remain freely available for everyone. If you refuse participating with the effort of reconciling your wishlist with the goals of Free Software and think by just ignoring everything said and stomping your feet and yelling "but I want it!", then you will not be part of the effort of finding better solutions. > In an equilibrium in which a permissively licensed compiler dominates, > non-free software can simply appropriate from all components at will. Which is exactly why the GNU project is not interested in supporting LLVM-based solutions over that using GCC. > At the present rate, though, you might as well just add, on top of the > GCC README, "look at my influence, ye mighty, and despair!". Take a hike, seriously. I have no influence at all. I do not represent the GNU project in any form or capacity. All that I am doing is trying to save you some of the work you'd need to invest to understand the issues involved so that you can meaningfully participate in a mature solution finding process. If you are not interested in doing that, the least you can do is refrain from poisoning the atmosphere in mailing lists that are at best marginally topical for your rants. > Do you really need the difference spelled out for you? Previously, > there was no free compiler of acceptable quality aside from > GCC. pcc has been available for decades, and all the commercial Unix variants relied on it. Get your history right. > Previously, integration with external tools was less important. Now > Clang and LLVM exist. The world is much different than it was during > GCC's earlier existence. GCC will never again pull off another coup > like the release of the Objective-C compiler. >>> How will the world be a better place when almost every every free >>> operating system and free development environment is based on Clang >>> and explicitly non-free derivatives are rampant? >> >> Because there will still be a free software solution available without >> the need to hope that everybody will be playing nice when extending it. > > Will there be? If your "solution" doesn't actually meet user needs, > it's not a solution. Users won't put up with significantly impaired > functionality for the sake of using copyleft software when libre > software (likely with non-free but gratis extensions) exists that > fulfills their needs. Those users you are talking about are not, fortunately, dictating the choices of the GNU project. If they were, there would be no GCC, no GNU, and not even the GPLed Linux kernel. It is a visibility problem in a way that GNU and Free Software have become popular for reasons other than what they have been created for and that a large majority of users could care less about its original mission and act up a storm whenever they find some of the basic choices underlying GNU to affect their convenience. As long as you are not interested in working on solutions, you are not doing anybody a favor by venting. -- David Kastrup