Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft [LWN.net]

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 25, 2014 9:52 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft by silvas
Parent article: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

> For example, you'll never see an Apple compiler with
> better C++1y support than the public Clang.

You're probably right. Apple wouldn't have any interest in a proprietary fork with better C++1y support.

But when they (be it Apple, or IBM, or whoever) have some super new optimisation, or support for their latest platforms, or some other feature that can't be found in GCC, then they'd have an incentive to only offer it in their proprietary version.

Knowing them, I can't see why they spurn such an incentive.

With GCC, I know that forks will never be non-free, and I can say "never" with confidence.

to post comments

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 25, 2014 20:21 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (4 responses)

You miss one very important point. Neither Apple nor IBM are *software* companies. Apple sells hardware - why should they care that a software company takes their innovations closed - so long as it sells more hardware.

Likewise IBM is a service company nowadays - if their innovations are taken closed but it lets IBM sell more hardware, then fine. And if IBM get paid to create these innovations as a "work for hire", then equally fine.

This "free/open" kerfuffle has most relevance when we're worried about software companies. As far as hardware or service companies are concerned, I think we've won the argument - write the software, plonk it in the public domain, and walk away.

We just need to win that argument in Hollywood, and the big software companies are toast.

Cheers,
Wol

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 25, 2014 22:27 UTC (Sat) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262) [Link] (3 responses)

I think coriordan's point is not that an Apple or an IBM would be worried about another company taking their innovations closed, because that presumes the innovation was in the open in the first place. I think his point is that if their innovations never make it to the open version and are only in their own closed version, which only runs on their own hardware, then you have an incentive to buy their hardware to get their super-duper-improved version of llvm.

e.g. if the Xcode compiler has clever optimisations not available in the upstream llvm then that is an incentive to use Xcode, which is only available for Apple hardware, so it sells more Apple hardware. If the clever optimisation is in upstream llvm then it's available to GNU/Linux users on non-Apple hardware and doesn't help sell Apple hardware.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 25, 2014 22:48 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (2 responses)

That sounds fundamentally the same motivations that drove proprietary UNIX through the '80s and '90s. Just like today every hardware vendor grabs Linux as the first step in getting their widget to market but today, unlike then, there is pressure to push changes upstream, both from the GPL (which is a fantastic license) and from the complexity of maintaining an in-house fork compared to an '80s UNIX.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 26, 2014 14:35 UTC (Sun) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262) [Link] (1 responses)

> Just like today every hardware vendor grabs Linux as the first step in getting their widget to market

Except Apple :-)

They have a proprietary OS based on FreeBSD (and also iOS, whatever that's based on), and a proprietary compiler based on LLVM, and the rest of the community does not get to enjoy the goodies they add to their proprietary versions.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 26, 2014 18:12 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

To be fair Apples code base predates the existence of Linux, being from the 1980s, and they just did what many did before Linux which was to grab BSD off the shelf and start with that.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 26, 2014 0:58 UTC (Sun) by silvas (guest, #87887) [Link] (6 responses)

> But when they (be it Apple, or IBM, or whoever) have some super new optimisation, or support for their latest platforms, or some other feature that can't be found in GCC, then they'd have an incentive to only offer it in their proprietary version.

Basically, you're saying that GCC would rob them of an opportunity to gain a business advantage. I'm all for software freedom, but even to me that doesn't sound like a compelling argument to adopt GCC.

It's myopic to think that the software is somehow the key factor here: the assault on freedom in this situation is the incentive to keep it proprietary, and that is a much larger issue. There is a similar assault on freedom from the fact that their hardware designs are proprietary as well, and the incentives are similar.

I'm amazed that so many people are up in arms about software freedom when it is such a small part of larger issues with broad societal ramifications. As a simple example, many/most people (and in particular the people "in power", and our predecessors who made today's laws) think that you can own a sequence of 0's and 1's and prevent somebody else from having that sequence of 0's and 1's on their computer (or charge them money/send them to jail for doing so).

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 26, 2014 17:18 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (5 responses)

> you're saying that GCC would rob them of an
> opportunity to gain a business advantage.

I didn't say that. GCC would require them to play by the same rules as everyone else. It prevents parasitism. Some (big) companies might be disappointed that they can't parasite GCC. I think it's twisted and inaccurate to repaint this as "being robbed of a business advantage".

> when it is such a small part of larger issues
> with broad societal ramifications

This is misleading for two reasons. The first is that it suggests that we should give up on one fight simply because other fights exist. There will always be other fights, so that logic would just lead to giving up on every fight.

(Some people love finding excuses to do less.)

Secondly, it's missing the point that we are actually winning this fight. Human rights and sensible tech policy have been retreating in almost every domain in the last twenty years. The free software movement has actually made progress. It hasn't won, and there's a mountain of work left to do, but it's stronger now then it was in 2000, and it was stronger in 2000 than it was in 1990.

If you want to campaign against other abuses of copyright, that's great! I wish you success. But you're not helping those causes by telling people to go limp on free software.

But you're not helping those causes

Posted Jan 26, 2014 21:26 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (4 responses)

By telling people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own work.

Regards,
Wol

But you're not helping those causes

Posted Jan 26, 2014 23:28 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (2 responses)

No one's telling anyone what they're allowed do.

We're discussing the effects of licensing strategies on free software's future. Some people are pointing out that copyleft helps free software more.

You're ignoring the substance of the discussion and instead saying that people who express their opinion on this matter are fanatics that are trying to boss people around. I disagree, I think this is important and should be discussed.

But you're not helping those causes

Posted Jan 27, 2014 19:58 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

And what dragged me into this discussion was people expressing the sentiment that Google should not be contributing their code to LLVM/Clang. Why shouldn't they? It's their code!

And Google has never been particularly enamoured with copyleft.

Especially when a certain person expressed the desire for one free software program to triumph over another! :-) As I said, I'm no fan of monoculture. You only have to witness my diatribes about the brokenness of First Normal Form to know that !!! :-)

Cheers,
Wol

If they want to own it, they can keep it.

Posted Jan 28, 2014 3:58 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> contributing their code to LLVM/Clang. Why shouldn't they? It's their code!

The point was if they want to help free software, they should contribute to copylefted projects. You're saying everyone should stand idly by while Google does whatever they want with "their" code. That's a recipe for failure.

Like any push for social change, getting to a society where computer users have freedom and control of their computers involves direct action (writing our own code), lobbying our governments, and pressuring companies.

> It's their code!

I don't agree. If they want to own it, they can keep it to themselves. Same for music, same for food.

Years ago, food was sold without the ingredients being listed on the wrapper. When food labeling was proposed, the food industry complained, "It's our food!", but governments decided that when you distribute food, you have responsabilities. It's no longer "your" food, it's food that's circulating in society.

I view software (and cultural works) similarly.

But you're not helping those causes

Posted Jan 27, 2014 21:48 UTC (Mon) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262) [Link]

There's a big difference between telling you what you should do with your code and telling you what you are allowed to do. Use whatever license you like, but don't expect everyone to agree with your decision.