"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."
See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology.
Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE is able to benefit from it, and that is good... FOR EVERYONE! For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products. The money that proprietary companies make from being able to incorporate non-copylefted software into their products has a ripple effect. Companies like NVIDIA can provide more jobs, LLVM developers become more highly sought-after, customers benefit from more rapid advances in the technology, and the entire LLVM-based community benefits from work that filters back down from companies like NVIDIA into the mainline LLVM repo.
Stallman's argument that projects like LLVM help proprietary companies take away users' rights is simply not true. There would be little benefit for a company like NVIDIA to take from the LLVM community, and be unwilling to give anything back. For one, it would be so much harder for them to hire good people out of that community, which they will desperately need in order to drive their products forward. But look at what has actually happened: NVIDIA are releasing the code to their LLVM-based compiler! Why? Because it doesn't really benefit NVIDIA to enforce a proprietary lock-in on their customers.
As for his argument against the Apple App Store, how is it really of benefit to anyone if binaries are "free" the way he thinks they should be? Does anyone really want or need the ability to install a "free" binary onto their iPhone/iPad? Why is wrong for companies to want to protect their proprietary platforms and technology (and also their users) from potentially malicious/illegal code, or code that might brick the device? Oh, that's right! Because Richard Stallman thinks that companies should not be allowed to guard any of their interests when it comes to software. This is an obnoxious opinion, and detrimental to real user freedom.
I do not think the world will suffer AT ALL if clang/LLVM has doomed GCC to irrelevance. I was actually glad to read Stallman's email because it signifies that clang/LLVM really are eroding GCC's relevance, to the point where even Stallman is feeling it. Soon, Stallman and his FSF cronies will be relegated to the footnotes of computing history where they belong.
> For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products.
Counterpoint: Say I'm writing a new OS, and want to use the hardware I bought. How do I port the CUDA compiler? Porting GCC (or LLVM) should be pretty easy -- but that doesn't help me, because I can't use my software on my hardware.
This is what RMS has a problem with. You argue that if they had to contribute their changes back, we would all have been worse off. I'm not so sure. I think it's more: Nvidia could get lots of code for free and made more money, than if they had to write that code themselves. Great for Nvidia, yes -- but it's a bit of a tautology: If I give you something for free, and you can turn around and make money off it -- that is good for you. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's a lot better for me.
Do you not benefit from newer technology delivered at lower costs? Do you not benefit from more paying jobs to work on open source software?
What RMS has a problem with is the fact that companies don't (and shouldn't) always tell you how their products work. Just because you bought something doesn't give you the right to know all of its secrets. If he (or you) is not ok with that, then fine, he lives in America, he has the freedom to disagree. His solution, however, is to try to restrict the freedom of people and companies when it comes to software and software reuse. That's what I have a problem with.
Thankfully, I think LLVM and clang represent the coming ultimate triumph of the Berkeley school of software freedom. The clouds of the Cambridge school have overshadowed the software world for far too long.
As I try to support companies that work for a more open architecture, no, I do not benefit from proprietary advances by Nvidia. I would also argue that free research, open technology in general leads to lower costs and higher productivity than closed equivalents -- while they might lead to lower profits (and less concentration of wealth). But since I don't own Nvidia, I don't benefit from their profits.
RMS has just made a choice that he'd like to do his bit to enforce openness and freedom. Everyone is still free not to use GPL software, just as they are free to not use proprietary operating systems. And without the FSF and RMS, I think we'd have a lot less choice in that regard.
There's lots of paying jobs for working on free software too -- we can (and do) have both.
As for:
> Just because you bought something doesn't give you the right to know all of its secrets.
Perhaps not. But I'd argue you should have the right to use it as you see fit. I don't need to know all the details of a chair to sit on it, use it to reach the top shelf, or burn it to keep warm -- to use it as intended by the manufacturer and otherwise. I do need to know a bit about my graphics card to use it efficiently.
NVIDIA benefits from LLVM at the expense of user freedom. That is not benefiting everyone. You, like many others, value convenience over freedom. The Dead Kennedys have an album entitled "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death". That title reminds me of the dominant mentality in the software industry.
You seem to have forgotten that computers exist solely for the purposes of making man's life more convenient. Any ideas of software freedom that get in the way of this convenience are bad for mankind. Therefore Stallman's ideas about software freedom are bad for mankind. LLVM is more popular because it is more convenient. It is more convenient because it is truly free, and not enslaved by a license that exalts the "rights of software" above all else.
The idea of imbuing an inanimate thing with rights that are restrictive to animate beings is philosophically offensive to any right-thinking individual.
Granted, the application of the adjective "free" to an inanimate thing like software is confusing. But the point of free software is to promote freedom for the users of the software. So it really is about freedom for animate beings after all.
It's interesting that the advantage for LLVM is that it was used to create a compiler for a processor with a secret and proprietary instruction set.
If NVIDIA had to use GCC (surely they'd have just done their own instead, but for the sake of argument) then we'd all get to learn more about their architecture and maybe make compilers for different languages that natively target their processors...
What makes you think you have the right to learn about a proprietary architecture? Just because you bought the product doesn't mean NVIDIA has to tell you how it works.
See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology.
Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE is able to benefit from it, and that is good... FOR EVERYONE! For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products. The money that proprietary companies make from being able to incorporate non-copylefted software into their products has a ripple effect. Companies like NVIDIA can provide more jobs, LLVM developers become more highly sought-after, customers benefit from more rapid advances in the technology, and the entire LLVM-based community benefits from work that filters back down from companies like NVIDIA into the mainline LLVM repo.
Stallman's argument that projects like LLVM help proprietary companies take away users' rights is simply not true. There would be little benefit for a company like NVIDIA to take from the LLVM community, and be unwilling to give anything back. For one, it would be so much harder for them to hire good people out of that community, which they will desperately need in order to drive their products forward. But look at what has actually happened: NVIDIA are releasing the code to their LLVM-based compiler! Why? Because it doesn't really benefit NVIDIA to enforce a proprietary lock-in on their customers.
As for his argument against the Apple App Store, how is it really of benefit to anyone if binaries are "free" the way he thinks they should be? Does anyone really want or need the ability to install a "free" binary onto their iPhone/iPad? Why is wrong for companies to want to protect their proprietary platforms and technology (and also their users) from potentially malicious/illegal code, or code that might brick the device? Oh, that's right! Because Richard Stallman thinks that companies should not be allowed to guard any of their interests when it comes to software. This is an obnoxious opinion, and detrimental to real user freedom.
I do not think the world will suffer AT ALL if clang/LLVM has doomed GCC to irrelevance. I was actually glad to read Stallman's email because it signifies that clang/LLVM really are eroding GCC's relevance, to the point where even Stallman is feeling it. Soon, Stallman and his FSF cronies will be relegated to the footnotes of computing history where they belong.