[spamizbad]

Give me a break.

Look, if you don't want his personal conduct to factor in, let's look at the percipidous decline in free software (and the rise of copyright BSD/MIT/Apache open source software).

Years ago, LLVM was offered to Stallman and the FSF. Due to the idiosyncratic way he chooses to handle his email, he never even got their message. As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license. Clang was built on top of it, also under a copyright license. This all culminated in giving Apple a much needed escape-hatch from GPL'd software.

This is critically important, as prior to Clang/LLVM, the only open source compiler with any real mind/market share among developers was GCC. The fact that this was poorly timed, right before a sort of cambrian explosion of PLT language interests as corporate culture shifted away from only tolerating code written in C++/Java. Modern languages started getting built outside of free software and mainstreamed into industry.

This is a critical setback for the movement. Stallman has stated, and I agree with this, that having a state-of-the-art compiler suite is central to the free software movement. GCC should have been that compiler, instead it's now Clang/LLVM.

Between the rise of a non-free developer ecosystem (of which clang and LLVM helped state), and the mismanagement of the GPL v2/v3 switch, you now have an entire generation of software developers (and a start of a new one IMO), who basically don't give a crap about free software or the GPL - it's just that annoying restrictive open source license made by that guy.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license

An extremely silly tall tale.

When we released our software under GNU GPL licenses, we didn't write rms to ask for his permission or blessing. We just did release it under the license we felt was best for our vision.

So if llvm was released under different license, this is fully on llvm author. They had reasons to release it under the license that fitted them best.

[spamizbad]

It's documented truth - from RMS himself:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...

Chris Lattner's original email: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html

> The patch I'm working on is GPL licensed and copyright will be assigned to the FSF under the standard Apple copyright assignment. Initially, I intend to link the LLVM libraries in from the existing LLVM distribution, mainly to simplify my work. This code is licensed under a BSD-like license [8], and LLVM itself will not initially be assigned to the FSF. If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details.

If your view is LLVM's licensing is irrelevant to the free software movement then perhaps you don't understand free software as much as you think.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> If your view is LLVM's licensing is irrelevant to the free software movement then perhaps you don't understand free software as much as you think.

Ah, I love the smell of the Straw Man argument in the morning. Please, don't do that in civilized discussions. I have never stated that LLVM is not Free Software.

Regarding the links you provided, it is irrelevant. If LLVM developers really had wanted to release the code under GNU GPL license, they would have done it. If they had wanted to transfer copyright to FSF, they would have done it. They didn't, and without a doubt they had more strong reasons than 'they didn't answer my email'.

I think that the use of the Apache license has more to do with Lattner's then employer, Apple. I can't recall any software by them ever released under GNU GPL license, and they are not known as friendly to GPL.

[tyre10]

There are dozens of other gcc developers: Had they been eager to accept this offer, they'd have found ways to make Stallman see that email.

Where was the SC, who just had enough power to remove RMS, in this situation? Why aren't they to blame?

Most likely, as is always the case with large patches, no developer wanted to bother, because LLVM wasn't known yet.

But we are post-truth, and all failings of an organization are attributed to a single individual. Seems like the tradition of human sacrifices to cleanse a group is popular again.

[dmos62]

That's interesting info, thanks for recounting that, but this letter is not about Stallman's merits as a manager, but about the arguably baseless public condemnation of his character.