| benefit != convenience for some at least, and it was a goal in the first two decades of the Linux kernel community TL;DR: LLVM and Clang allow non-free (proprietary) extensions The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours
because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the
measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the
inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the
need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open
source" and do not talk about freedom. They have been supported by
Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store
for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*) The nonfree compilers that are now based on LLVM prove that I was
right -- that the danger was real. If I had "opened" up GCC code for
use in nonfree combinations, that would not have prevented a defeat;
rather, it would have caused that defeat to occur very soon. For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that
defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but
I would rejoice for the community's advance. The existence of LLVM is
a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not
copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so
that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as
much as it helps us. The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler
that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity
of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a
secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be
throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory
would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really
matters: users' freedom. |
do you have any evidence of that? and why are you quoting RMS while talking about development of the linux kernel?