Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"-> 2

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has called LLVM a terrible setback in a new mailing list exchange over GCC vs. Clang. LLVM continues to be widely used and grow in popularity for different uses, but its under a BSD-style license rather than the GPL. RMS wrote, "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. ""
Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's a terrible set back for Free Software for sure, but not for people who like to write software of any kind. LLVM can be used more like a component in other projects, free or non-free and both GCC and Clang have an audience. With LLVM, want to make your thing free, you can, want to close source to "make more money", you can. LLVM has a different freedom. For some this gives more choice and freedom to make a living or to give to the community. Competition is good too.

  • Choice for the consumer is good.

    In an ideal world we would all have the source for every program so we can diagnose it.
    In an ideal world we would only _need_ 1 compiler instead of everyone wasting man-years re-inventing yet another "wheel".

    I deeply admire anyone who can remain committed to taking their ideology to an extreme by living it. However, such ideology is not appreciated, or understand by the majority. There are more "practical" and "pragmatic" sacrifices that sometimes must be made. Not everyon

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.