Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Posted Jan 28, 2014 16:29 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft by Del-
Parent article: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Wrong. Stop deluding yourself.
iDevices and Androids have no GPLv3 software. Whatsoever. And they outnumber personal computers by now.
> Major contributions are being made by industry to various GPLv3 projects too.
So?
> BTW, why are you pounding that dead horse, you do not believe copy-left is a good idea in the first place (otherwise you would probably be evangelising usage of GPL2-only or LGPL licensing by now).
LGPL with static link exception is fine. GPL for end-user software is also OK-ish.
> They were always dispensable, there used to be many operating systems around remember?
Nope. Even FreeBSD was built using gcc, there literally was no free alternative. Remember?
> Large organizations are not allergic to GPL regardless of version. To the contrary they gladly pay Red Hat for it.
Can you understand what people write to you? It's perfectly OK for large companies to use GPL or even GPLv3 for infrastructure or non-essential services. It can't harm anyone that way. They might even throw a patch or two to tweak something.
But no large company produces devices with GPLv3. And just how many end-user devices with RHEL are being produced?
>You mean operating systems not architectures, right? Of course, GCC and Gimp are used across all desktop OS families successfully by many.
There's no GIMP on iOS. Or Android, for that matter.
>Yes, ideology. I am afraid I am the pragmatic one among the two of us.
LOL.
Posted Jan 28, 2014 18:30 UTC (Tue)
by Del- (guest, #72641)
[Link] (15 responses)
It is one industry, one datapoint. There is more in this world than smartphones. Stop making wide ranging statements when you really mean very specific usage. Android certainly do have GPLv3 licensed software in numbers, but you may refer to the operating system? Well Android is pretty stripped down, with only a custom Java engine to run the apps. The choice of using apache was maded specifically because HTC and the rest wanted to use an open core model from my recollection. It is an interesting dynamics, and shows a natural usage of permissive licensing. This may have nothing to do with version 3.
Let me help you out a bit. First up there is the boot-loader. Recall how lilo was very popular, but now all distros use Grub? Guess what licenses those two have? Does Google use Lilo for Android? Nope, of course not, they don't use Grub either, and mostly because Grub has a ton of functionality Android does not need. Same with SurfaceFlinger, do you think they did it because of the xorg license? Wow, Google really must hate the X11 license, wonder why Apple likes it... Now over to your favourite glibc, well do you remember the ordeal with Ulrich Drepper refusing patches for using glibc in an embedded setting? Debian forking glibc over to eglibc. Do you think maybe that could have somewhat more to do with bionic than the license? You are a smart guy, I am sure you get the drift. Again, somebody from Google speaking up would be nice. Not saying I know the priorities, but your conclusions are not very convincing to me.
> LGPL with static link exception is fine. GPL for end-user software is also OK-ish.
Hm, I cannot make any sense of what you are trying to say here.
> Nope. Even FreeBSD was built using gcc, there literally was no free alternative. Remember?
Let me help your memory. BSD used to have *drums*, a BSD licensed compiler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler
>But no large company produces devices with GPLv3. And just how many end-user devices with RHEL are being produced?
and you know why, don't you? Does the name Elop ring any bell with you, at all? Did you have the pleasure of using the N9? A part from that GPLv3 has made success in network routers, Linksys (yes that was Cisco, do they count as large you think?) even marketed it. Any NAS box these days come with Samba, does Hewlett Packard count as large in your book by any chance? This is just getting stupid, I think I will stop here.
Posted Jan 28, 2014 20:56 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (14 responses)
>Well Android is pretty stripped down, with only a custom Java engine to run the apps.
And gcc is only a translator from C++ to machine code. And Linux is merely a wrapper over hardware-provided services. And Google is simply an indexer.
>The choice of using apache was maded specifically because HTC and the rest wanted to use an open core model from my recollection.
>Well Android is pretty stripped down, with only a custom Java engine to run the apps. The choice of using apache was maded specifically because HTC and the rest wanted to use an open core model from my recollection.
> Let me help your memory. BSD used to have *drums*, a BSD licensed compiler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler
No they didn't. The first attempts to use PCC to compile FreeBSD were made in 2007 or so. It has never been used in anger, unlike Clang.
> and you know why, don't you? Does the name Elop ring any bell with you, at all? Did you have the pleasure of using the N9?
> A part from that GPLv3 has made success in network routers, Linksys (yes that was Cisco, do they count as large you think?) even marketed it. Any NAS box these days come with Samba, does Hewlett Packard count as large in your book by any chance?
So yes, it only reinforces my point: GPLv3 failed miserably.
Posted Jan 28, 2014 22:13 UTC (Tue)
by Del- (guest, #72641)
[Link] (8 responses)
GCC is a compiler collection, it can do much more than Java.
> Android was designed this way to allow carriers to lock down phones, and total avoidance of GPL was a pre-emptive step to avoid being forced to support GPLv2 forks indefinitely.
Sloppy again are we. There is plenty of GPL code in Android as I am sure you know. You mean version 3 I guess. You may or may not be right. Like already mentioned, Android avoids GPL in user space due to it's open core model.
> So there's no phone with GPLv3 software out there. Even the new Jolla phone does NOT have GPLv3 anywhere, though they have quite a lot of GPL and LGPL software on it.
Actually I do believe you will find GPLv3 software on N9, basically from the Debian stuff. But you are right when it comes to Jolla not shipping GPLv3 in shipping images, here I found the documentation for you:
> Again, it's either isolated or used in non-core parts. Or in situation where GPLv3 has no bite at all.
You were flat out wrong, and are back-paddling desperately. May I suggest that you just admit it, GPLv3 is not that big of a deal on devices. Sure, there are manufacturers that want to lock-down devices, and they will probably avoid Grub. That's no biggie, Uboot serves them fine.
Just listened to Langley's talk, and it makes me depressed.
Posted Jan 28, 2014 22:33 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (6 responses)
>However, GPLv3 software is easily available in abundance on Sailfish, Meego and Android.
>On a related note, Jolla does ship glibc, did you know that?
> You were flat out wrong, and are back-paddling desperately.
>May I suggest that you just admit it, GPLv3 is not that big of a deal on devices.
>Sure, there are manufacturers that want to lock-down devices
Posted Jan 28, 2014 22:49 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Posted Jan 28, 2014 23:12 UTC (Tue)
by Del- (guest, #72641)
[Link] (4 responses)
I believe linux is still GPL, and it is a part of Android.
> Sure. They don't limit third-party software, so they can't care less.
They provided it in repos themselves I believe.
But now I am afraid I have to call it a day..
Posted Jan 29, 2014 1:14 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
Ah yes, apart from Linux itself, of course. But Linux is an exception somewhat - it has a non-existent GPL enforcement and it's also firmly in GPLv2 only camp.
However, there _are_ Android implementations that do not even use Linux - Blackberry runs their own Android simulator atop QNX.
> They provided it in repos themselves I believe.
Posted Jan 29, 2014 3:08 UTC (Wed)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (1 responses)
Not true. netfilter is enforced by its copyright holder, and several other kernel copyright holders have thrown their lot in with the SFLC. I'd guess that the only piece of GPLed software with *more* license enforcement than the Linux kernel is busybox.
Posted Jan 29, 2014 3:16 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Jan 29, 2014 6:55 UTC (Wed)
by Del- (guest, #72641)
[Link]
Down to semantics are we. U-boot not being part of the image you mean? What are you trying to prove, that what Google forked and made themselves in user space on Android was permissively licensed? We agreed on that already. Just forgot, Uboot is GPLv2+ so available under GPLv2, but also available under GPLv3. A tiny fact you jumped over earlier in this thread.
> Links?
Dig yourself, I cannot fathom that detail making any difference for you at all.
Posted Jan 29, 2014 12:04 UTC (Wed)
by jani (subscriber, #74547)
[Link]
Nokia did not ship GPLv3 software on the N9.
Posted Jan 20, 2015 17:38 UTC (Tue)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link] (4 responses)
>> A part from that GPLv3 has made success in network routers, Linksys (yes that was Cisco, do they count as large you think?) even marketed it. Any NAS box these days come with Samba, does Hewlett Packard count as large in your book by any chance?
So let me get this straight. You're saying that in a NAS box, Samba - the GPLv3+ SMB1/2/3 implementation that ALLOWS THE BOX TO FUNCTION AND IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE PRODUCT is a 'non-core part'.
Hmmmm. I think you might want to look at the lifeboats. The argument is desperately listing and taking on water at an alarming rate :-).
Posted Jan 20, 2015 17:41 UTC (Tue)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link]
Please accept my apologies :-).
Posted Jan 20, 2015 20:56 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
Your core part is something that you differentiate on from your competitors. For SAN the most interesting part is their core storage management which is far out of reach of GPLv3.
For end-user NAS boxes companies usually have no differentiating features at all (except the components price that you can get from your Chinese suppliers). So the vendors don't mind putting GPLv3 on them.
Posted Jan 21, 2015 16:09 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Jan 21, 2015 17:32 UTC (Wed)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
Nope. That's your code *competency*, which is a business/management term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_competency.
The usual engineering interpretation of the term is very different, and more in line with the FEMA definition: https://www.fema.gov/core-capabilities. Basically a core "part" is something you *require* to achieve a goal, not something that distinguishes you from the rest.
At least that's how I see it.
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
You really need to get your history straight, copy-left ran the pants of anything BSD had to offer. It is your very good friend Apple and its fat wallet you can thank for BSD having another go at compilers. Seems they have a lot of money to spend on astroturfing these days too, I have never seen so many lies about GCC spreading before. Those unfamiliar with history is bound to repeat the mistakes, and it saddens me that so few care about the history.
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Actually, there is not. Smartphones this year outnumbered all other computers, except for microcontrollers.
:facepalm:
Nope. Android was designed this way to allow carriers to lock down phones, and total avoidance of GPL was a pre-emptive step to avoid being forced to support GPLv2 forks indefinitely.
Google uses Coreboot which is GPLv2 on Chromebooks. JFYI. Lots of Android devices use U-Boot which is, you guessed it, GPLv2.
So there's no phone with GPLv3 software out there. Even the new Jolla phone does NOT have GPLv3 anywhere, though they have quite a lot of GPL and LGPL software on it.
Again, it's either isolated or used in non-core parts. Or in situation where GPLv3 has no bite at all.
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Architecture#GNU_utilities
Nokia on the other hand was big enough to make a difference, and Microsoft made sure that never happened. I would say Microsoft did a bargain when they got Nokia on board with an exclusive deal, worth every billion. However, GPLv3 software is easily available in abundance on Sailfish, Meego and Android. On a related note, Jolla does ship glibc, did you know that?
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
There is _no_ GPL (of any version) in Android images and even no LGPL anymore. Android tools certainly use it.
Sure. They don't limit third-party software, so they can't care less.
Which is LGPLv2.1
Nope.
It IS a big deal on devices. So big that big vendors essentially forked the entire FSF stack to avoid it.
Again, another understatement like "the waves were higher than normal during the tsunami in Japan".
LGPL is most certainly there: KHTML^H^H^H^HWebkit^H^H^H^HBlink^H^H^H^Hwhat-the-name-if-this-thing-today still includes few LGPL-licensed files. But all the new development there uses BSD (not Apache, BTW, but BSD) thus it's pretty limited and constrained.
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Links?
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
> Again, it's either isolated or used in non-core parts. Or in situation where GPLv3 has no bite at all.
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft
Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft