Clang Vs Free Software by Richard M. Stallman

Topics not related to Ultimate Edition.


Clang Vs Free Software by Richard M. Stallman

Postby pam » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:21 am

Many of you may not know this but Apple Inc. (the company that makes Mac stuff, OSx, iOS, iphone, ipad, AppleTV) is one of the largest contributors to the open-source world. OpenCL was developed by them. There are the major code contributors to the Clang compiler along with Google. The latest software's of Apple are developed on LLVM Clang. The linux kernel can be compiled using Clang, gallium 3d already uses it(llvmpipe) which is part of the mesa stack.

Clang and llvm are based on the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License. The license is template based:
Code: Select all

    Copyright (c) <YEAR> <OWNER ORGANIZATION NAME>. All rights reserved.


    Developed by: <NAME OF DEVELOPMENT GROUP>
    <NAME OF INSTITUTION>
    <URL FOR DEVELOPMENT GROUP/INSTITUTION>

    Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal with the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

        Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
        Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
        Neither the names of <NAME OF DEVELOPMENT GROUP>, <NAME OF INSTITUTION>, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission.


    THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE.


LLVM(low level virtual machine) is back-end to Clang. Clang is a compiler frontend for varied implementations of the C language. LLVM is a compiler infrastructure that runs Clang. For example: Its kind of like a pseudo implementation in the java programming language that uses a virtual machine where you build a program on one CPU architecture but can be run on any other CPU arch.
LLVM allows easy porting.
So basically, LLVM is a passthrough for Clang. LLVM is a mechanism for optimizing IF code(intermediate form) wherein it takes in code from Clang and optimizes it.
GCC can also be used with Clang.

The Gnu GPL license is written by Richard M. Stallman. There are many other "free" and "open-source" licenses. According to RMS --- free is not the same as open-source. All open-source programs and source-code is copylefted.

A program that is non-free(charged eg: The Appstore) and free of charge software like Android(and its applications) can have code that is readable by all but is under a different licence that is Not copylefted(the opposite of copyright laws), which means you cant edit code and redistribute copies of the program but still source code is viewable by all....
Here is Stallman's take on it....
Code: Select all
Re: clang vs free software

    From: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu dot org>
    To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
    Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:54:13 -0500
    Subject: Re: clang vs free software
    Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
    References: <CAJnXXoi2MLpZWxOxknR=mNR91JdZcHrKRsqYZSWY373fvwxObg at mail dot gmail dot com> <87eh439w1n dot fsf at uwakimon dot sk dot tsukuba dot ac dot jp> <CAJnXXojjSAWL8cqZp0X16xa81R73huywtTS90p6O3CpRaPOiDQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <jwvwqhu8zcg dot fsf-monnier+emacs at gnu dot org> <87ha8yqvup dot fsf at engster dot org> <E1W5cXI-0000j4-8x at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <CAJnXXoiuzZhjDGpvXY7psee=+bXn1rB+GdELYP0FS0CuWPqYeQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <E1W6HwP-0001WU-Tg at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <87r47zezcc dot fsf at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <m2eh3ykc3y dot fsf at gmail dot com> <20140123174934 dot GA10933 at thyrsus dot com>
    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 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.

(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for more explanation of the difference between free software and open
source.  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 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. (*)

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.

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.

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

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

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.


If you want to argue for changing the goals of the GNU Project, the
proper place to do this is gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org.  Please move this
discussion 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 Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.


Here is the link: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

To understand the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source " head over to:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-sour ... point.html
DONOTSPAMORTROLL:
http://forumubuntusoftware.info/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11
Download Ultimate Edition and Oz Unity 3.0 from copy:-
https://www.copy.com/s/oBnDBsDOvxF8jW1EuLKM/Public
Download Ultimate Edition from sourceforge:-
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultimat ... rce=navbar
Download Oz Unity 3.0 from sourceforge:-
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ueoz/files/UEOz/
Download Ultimate Edition torrents from linuxtracker:-
http://linuxtracker.org/index.php?page= ... 0&active=1
Download Oz Unity 3.0 torrents from linuxtracker:-
http://linuxtracker.org/index.php?page= ... 0&active=1
Image Image
Visit:http://www.ultimateeditionoz.com
User avatar
pam
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 5:56 am
Location: India
Age: 32
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 3.5 64 BIT

Return to General Discussion - Birthdays-Welcome to the Forums - Introduce yourself here!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron