Richard Stallman - Re_ Clang vs Free Software

8/18/2019 Richard Stallman - Re_ Clang vs Free Software

1/3

3/20/2016 Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

This is the mail archive of the [email protected] mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]

Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Other format: [Raw text]

Re: clang vs free software

From: Richard Stallman To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:54:13 -0500Subject : Re: clang vs free software Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none References:

Reply-to: rms at gnu dot org

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]

[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]][[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of theusers of computing. The values of free software are fundamentallydifferent from the values of open source, which make "better code" theultimate goal. If GCC were to change from a free compiler into aplatform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal offreedom very well. Therefore, we had to take care to prevent that.

(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.htmlfor more explanation of the difference between free software and opensource. See also http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler for

Evgeny Morozov's article on the same point.)

The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from oursbecause they do not share our values and goals. They object to themeasures we have taken to defend freedom because they see theinconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) theneed for them. I would guess they describe their work as "opensource" and do not talk about freedom. They have been supported byApple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app storefor the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*)

The nonfree compilers that are now based on LLVM prove that I wasright -- that the danger was real. If I had "opened" up GCC code for

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00246.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00248.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00246.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00214.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/index.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/subjects.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/authors.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/threads.html#00247http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustlerhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=gcc&date=2014-01&msgid=E1W6i97-0001Ct-SM%40fencepost.gnu.orghttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00214.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00246.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00248.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00246.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/threads.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/authors.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/subjects.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/index.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/


2/3



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 thatdefended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, butI would rejoice for the community's advance. The existence of LLVM isa terrible setback for our community precisely because it is notcopylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- sothat all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software asmuch as it helps us.

The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compilerthat therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identityof that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is asecondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would bethrowing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victorywould be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what reallymatters: users' freedom.

If you think we ought to "compromise" on this point, please seehttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html.

The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copyleftedcode. Free software released under a pushover license is availablefor us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If youwant your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverageavailable to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working onmajor add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPLversion-3-or-later.

If you want to argue for changing the goals of the GNU Project, theproper place to do this is [email protected]. Please move thisdiscussion there.

* If a binary is made from published source code, but you can't install your binary of a modified version of that source code, the binary is proprietary even if the source code is free. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) A binary in Apple's app store may be made from published free source code, but under Apple's rules and Apple's DRM, the binary can't be free.

--Dr Richard StallmanPresident, Free Software Foundation51 Franklin StBoston MA 02110

USAwww.fsf.org www.gnu.orgSkype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

References:Re: clang vs free software

From: Eric S. Raymond

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/threads.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/authors.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/subjects.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/index.html#00247https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html


3/3



Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00214.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00246.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00248.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00246.html

Documents

Richard Stallman - Re_ Clang vs Free Software