Richard Stallman 对 LLVM 的怨念很大啊

wait_rabbit

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

1. In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the users of computing. The values of free software are fundamentally different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the ultimate goal. If GCC were to change from a free compiler into a platform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal of freedom very well. Therefore, we had to take care to prevent that.
   
2. 
   
3. The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom. They have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree.
   
4. 
   
5. The nonfree compilers that are now based on LLVM prove that I was right -- that the danger was real. If I had "opened" up GCC code for use in nonfree combinations, that would not have prevented a defeat; rather, it would have caused that defeat to occur very soon.
   
6. 
   
7. For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but I would rejoice for the community's advance. 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.
   
8. 
   
9. If you think we ought to "compromise" on this point, please see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html.
   
10. 
    
11. The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later.

复制代码

这是要圣战的节奏吗？

BSD 和 GPL，到底谁更 freedom？

action08

我只是图混口饭吃的，谁让我喊啥我就喊啥

pitonas

Stallman就是,
也是蛮可爱的。

niao5929

绝对的自由就是不自由，BSDL是在糟蹋自由。

GPL 才是自由的正解，永远支持 GPL，支持伟大的自由战士 RMS
自由就是自由，我们需要保持一种未来的自由，至于有些人用它来干什么，未来的自由它是管不了的。从这点说我觉得GPLV3就是自由。但它需要和其他的协议有一种兼容！！要不两败倶伤，更是那些非自由和开源软件支持者们的鱼利！！！

redspider

绝对的自由就是不自由，BSDL是在糟蹋自由。

GPL 才是自由的正解，永远支持 GPL，支持伟大的自由战士 RMS

sunny7476

忘了，还有前一阵子OpenBSD的窘境。BSD的可持续发展能力有欠缺啊。

总的来看，GPL才是自私的保障自己的生存而牺牲部分用户的权利。BSD才是面对用户完全自由的。

sunny7476

虽然我喜欢BSD许可，不过BSD系列有点高大上，个人玩不起啊。。。

gvim

太执着就物极必反了