A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 28, 2009 12:11 UTC (Tue) by stevenb (guest, #11536)
In reply to: A new GCC runtime library license snag? by Lumag
Parent article: A new GCC runtime library license snag?

The LLVM folks have a surprisingly high success rate for "stealing" GCC front ends and making them work with LLVM. Ada and Fortran already mostly work with LLVM.

As for Clang licensing problems, the question is: "Who do you trust more: Apple or the FSF"... ;-)

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 28, 2009 13:03 UTC (Tue) by Lumag (subscriber, #22579) [Link] (5 responses)

Hmmm. Both of them aren't angels. I wouldn't rather trust both of them. However I'd trust Apple less.

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 28, 2009 13:19 UTC (Tue) by halla (subscriber, #14185) [Link] (4 responses)

And what, exactly, has the FSF done to abuse your trust?

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 28, 2009 14:42 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Wrote licenses that are now so complex that they don't even understand them themselves?

Lumag did say that he trusts the FSF more than Apple. That's something!

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 28, 2009 15:25 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (2 responses)

Three things come to mind:
Made a license called "GNU Free Documentation License" which isn't free. Claimed documentation
doesn't actually need to be free. Prohibited addition of plugin support for GCC for 10 years.

Of course if you're willing to conflate RMS-as-individual with FSF, there's many more. :)

Don't get me wrong, I do think FSF and RMS have been an overall positive by far, but they've also
done many remarkably stupid things.

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 28, 2009 16:29 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

> Don't get me wrong, I do think FSF and RMS have been an overall positive by far, but they've also done many remarkably stupid things.

If you agree with everything that another person (or group of people) says or does then:

A) Your being lied to and your falling for it.
B) Your lying to yourself.
C) Your brainwashed.
D) You have no mind of your own and you'll happily follow them off the edge of a cliff.
E) Your not thinking hard enough.

The thing about RMS is that he has a vision and he is compelled to follow it. That is a very very much superior approach then 90% of the 'pragmatists' out there that would rather not try anything new, not take risks, and don't want to think for themselves.

Of course he has problems, errors in his logic, errors in his approach, and has personality issues. The flip side is that people that don't have problems, don't have personality issues, and don't make mistakes are people that don't contribute, can't progress, are boring, and worthless as turds roasting on a hot sidewalk.

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 28, 2009 21:44 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is... Nobody is cliaming that the FSF is perfect ("an angel") and nobody so far has claimed to agree with the FSF 100%.

By 'pragmatists' do you mean people who disagree with the FSF or GPL? Say, the BSD crew? If so, I certainly don't agree.

Finally, it really sounds like you're saying that people who don't have personality issues are boring and worthless. If so, I don't agree there either!

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 29, 2009 11:57 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (1 responses)

IMHO the 'who do you trust' model of software licensing reduces everything to a soap opera of good companies and bad companies and isn't a sane way to make decisions.

A new GCC runtime library license snag?

Posted Jul 29, 2009 16:46 UTC (Wed) by Lumag (subscriber, #22579) [Link]

I'd agree with you, if it will be all about simple licensing. OTOH if we talk about 'we can change the license for this software as we'd like to' this is about trust (only).