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: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:30:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87y4o8vjgi.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87mw4rxkzv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423387902 23418 80.91.229.3 (8 Feb 2015 09:31:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 09:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, slewsys@gmail.com, Stefan Monnier To: Liang Wang Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 08 10:31:40 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 1YKODM-0001PR-I5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:31:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55924 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKODL-0007Nv-T6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:31:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47541) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKODA-0007Nq-Cs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:31:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKOD9-00025e-4p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:31:28 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58259) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKOD9-00025a-1y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:31:27 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37198 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKOD1-0007FD-JD; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:31:19 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 08E88DF2EC; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 10:30:37 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Liang Wang's message of "Sat, 7 Feb 2015 19:55:05 -0800") 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:182628 Archived-At: Liang Wang writes: > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >> [[[ 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. ]]] >> >> > LLVM is not meant to kill GCC >> >> More precisely, Apple intends LLVM and Clang to make GCC cease to be a >> signal success and a reason for all sorts of companies to work on a >> compiler that always gives users freedom. That would be a victory for >> Apple and a defeat for freedom. > > At least once, Apple proposed to integrate LLVM as part of GCC. > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html I think they are more or less "meh" about programmers using free software. Programmers have to use something, after all, and if somebody else does the work, so much the better (which explains why they departed from their entirely homegrown MacOS and jumped on a POSIX platform). What they are dead set against is _user_ freedom. They don't mind if people have great tools to write programs, but they want to be in control of the software their customers run particularly on devices like phones. That's what the GPLv3 is about. In my opinion, at least the anti-DRM provisions of the GPLv3 alone would not likely have made much of a difference regarding whether Apple chooses to adopt or not adopt GCC since bringing the operation of GCC itself under DRM is unlikely to be useful to Apple anyway. I rather think that the implied patent license is what keeps Apple clean off GPLv3 altogether since its effects extend beyond the program itself into an area where insane amounts of money can be made to pass hands for the most ridiculous reasons. Having this mad tea party table tilted against them might result in a lot of china crashing in their lap. At any rate, the GPL always was about "if you use our software, you get to share it under our conditions or roll your own" and it is entirely expected that particularly the big players consider "roll your own" a more predictable choice in business regards. We won't easily catch the big fish, and our increasing unpredictability chases away the small ones too. -- David Kastrup