User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Emacs and clang?

Emacs and clang?

Posted Jan 30, 2014 5:46 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
In reply to: Emacs and clang? by da4089
Parent article: GCC, LLVM, and compiler plugins

There are features that are in LLVM that are not in the GPL'd alternative. Stallman's policy is to not support those features in emacs. To not support proprietary software is one thing, to not support free software LLVM features because it is a competitor to a GNU program that doesn't have those features is another thing.

By the way, RMS did support the switch of Ogg Vorbis to a BSD licence on "pragmatic" grounds. Pragmatically, aren't we better off that Apple, Nvidia, Intel, Adobe and others are using and contributing to LLVM rather than a proprietary solution (and they either would not have, or could not have, used GCC for the use cases they had in mind)? Isn't there an argument to be made that, without LLVM, we wouldn't have free OpenCL compilers?


(Log in to post comments)

Emacs and clang?

Posted Jan 30, 2014 7:30 UTC (Thu) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]

Reading the message you linked, the balance there was between keeping copyleft and facilitating the use of a patent-free codec. There is no such tradeoff in the case of GCC.

Emacs and clang?

Posted Jan 30, 2014 7:58 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Again, there are things LLVM can do that GCC can't and probably never will. The choice is not between LLVM and GCC (unless you're just compiling a program, in which case GCC is probably better), it is between LLVM and something proprietary that would probably have been invented. And the commercial companies that use LLVM contribute back to it. If RMS's goal is to increase the availability of free software, he should support LLVM. If his goal is to shut down proprietary software at the cost of hurting free software, well, LLVM runs against that goal, but then he should not be running the "Free Software Foundation". Shut the FSF down, make clear that the GNU project exists in competition to and not in collaboration with other free software projects, and everyone will be happy. Or at least cease to be under misapprehensions.

Emacs and clang?

Posted Jan 30, 2014 8:42 UTC (Thu) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]

> Shut the FSF down, make clear that the GNU project exists in competition to and not in collaboration with other free software projects [...]

Calm down and stop screaming "bloody murder".

The FSF and RMS are free to not support whatever feature in Emacs. You are free to implement it (remember? It's free software) and even to distribute and promote it (as long as you abide by the license). The FSF and RMS explicitly allow you to do that.

In won't be under the FSF umbrella, i.e. not part of the official Emacs distro.

Where's the problem?

Emacs and clang?

Posted Jan 30, 2014 9:07 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

The problem is that the FSF's avowed mission is promotion of free software, and he is doing the opposite here because he thinks it will hurt a GNU project. If someone else ran FSF and he ran GNU there wouldn't be a problem.

Emacs and clang?

Posted Jan 31, 2014 7:50 UTC (Fri) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]

> The problem is that the FSF's avowed mission is promotion of free software [...]

which it has done in an impressive way, looking back. Could it have been done better? Possibly. Would *I* have done better than RMS? I very much doubt it. Could *you*? Sorry. I doubt it too.

And I repeat myself, because the point doesn't seem to be clear: thanks to the GPL you're free to add *and distribute* the LLVM support in Emacs you so much wish for. Go ahead!


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds