@SuperDicq Merely compiling it is unreasonable on all freedom-respecting computers due to the level of bloat.

It optimizes worse than GCC, but still takes far longer to compile than GCC, which is reason enough not to compile it.

Gentoo changed the grouping of the llvm package, thus bypassing existing masks and I checked how my update after 2 years was going and I found that LLVM was several hours into compiling - I C-c'd so fast.

@SuperDicq LLVM is great overall.

The only reason LLVM exists is because GCC license sucks, creating a lack of interest to support certain architectures used by companies.

For example, both AMD (GCN,r600) and Nvidia (NVPTX) do their own LLVM backends without LLVM team whereas GCC would require their own consent to do that

@waltercool @SuperDicq LLVM sucks in every way.

LLVM only exists because GCC uses a great license that doesn't give you the power to take the users freedom (was GPLv2-or-later-with-GCC-exception, now GPLv3-or-later-with-GCC-exception).

Both AMD and Nvidia have permission to write their own GCC backends without needing to ask the GCC team and also have permission to distribute such without asking for permission either - they just are not granted the power to take the users freedom by the license.

AMD and Nvidia wanted to take the freedom of the users and unfortunately the LLVM developers have intentionally granted them the power to take it via proprietary versions of GCC and they have done so.

If only LLVM did not exist, there's a chance that such injustice would not have occurred - as AMD and Nvidia would have had the choice between writing their own compiler, licensing a proprietary one (almost all are garbage), or writing a GCC extension that implements it and releasing it under a free license - I suspect the latter would have occurred.

@SuperDicq

> As it disallows people from making proprietary versions of LLVM.

That doesn't look very "pro-freedom" if the license tells you what not to do.

that's a common misconception

taking away others' freedom is not freedom, it's power over others, and this one isn't a power that anyone needs or should have.

a license that gives you back the freedom you deserve that copyright law took away, without giving you power to abuse others is a great license

a license that gives you that freedom, while also giving you power to abuse others, is an ethically acceptable license, but it depends on intermediaries' consciences for users to get the freedom everyone deserves

CC: @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo

@lxo @SuperDicq I truly don't disagree with most free software licenses, but GPL-3 have a very annoying clause forcing use exclusively for GPL-3 compatible projects. Acts like a virus in terms of licensing.

In other hand, licenses like BSD allow you to use the software in any way possible as long you give proper recognition to the authors.

This is why most companies use BSD and Apache licenses on everything, and that's why those software tend to have better widespread support then GNU-like.

A widespread usage of any FOSS software or library seems to me far more important than restricting usage to users and business overall. That's why PostgreSQL is the mainstream database nowadays. That's why MariaDB and Linux kernel uses GPLv2 and not GPLv3. They would die if they move to v3.

that's a collection of common misconceptions

the GPL requires each entire work to be distributed under it, indeed, (aside from explicit compatibility with AGPL), but there's no forcing involved: nobody is forced to use (as in modify, adapt) software that comes under these conditions, nor is anybody forced to choose this license. the misconception is that the GPL doesn't stop you from doing anything whatsoever, not to the software, not even to other users of the software. it's copyright that does. the GPL merely refrains from granting powers that copyright law reserves to copyright holders, so copyright prohibitions remains in effect.

but the GPL is not viral, that's another misconception. a virus can pass from one individual to another, but the GPL doesn't do that: the GPL is only passed on to derivative works: the freedom for users is a gift that's inherited by the program's descendents.

the reason companies prefer the lax permissive licenses is that they grant the companies power to abuse their downstream users. that's no surprise for exploitative businesses, but that doesn't make the licenses good for anyone else.

I agree with you that restricting usage is undesirable, and that's exactly why I prefer copyleft licenses like the GPL: with lax permissive licenses, intermediaries gain power to restrict usage and carry out the very harm you claim to be concerned about. preempting that by not granting that power avoids the problem.

besides, the GPL doesn't stop you from doing whatever you wish with the program, it just doesn't allow you to do whatever you wish unto downstream users of the program. do you see the difference?

you'll need to elaborate further on the differences you perceive between GPLv2 and GPLv3 for your apparent argument about Linux to be as much as checked on correctness. AFAICT, it's based on false premises and doesn't follow at all. the reasons Linux stayed with GPLv2 had to do with having painted itself in a relicensing corner, more than anything else, but its main sponsors through the LF were mainly concerned with having to share keys and installation instructions for firmware bundled with Linux. Linux still contains such nonfree components under obnoxious licenses to this day, despite being widely regarded as licensed under the GPLv2.

for userland projects that don't interface with more than general-purpose hardware and doesn't carry blobs for specific devices, such as MariaDB, the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3 are really minor are in details. I'm very curious about what it is that would get MariaDB in trouble should it change the license, but it seems as nonsensical as claiming it would become as successful as PostgreSQL if it switched to a lax permissive license.

CC: @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo

@lxo @SuperDicq A correction to your statement, Linux as a fully Open-Source project. They have blob requirements at runtime under linux-firmware repo which is non-free.

Some kernel modules will work with reduced features like 2D graphics only, Wifi under 2.4Ghz only, etc. Some others will do nothing.

Under my perception, I have a similar vision than Linus Torvalds about OpenSource. Free to disagree with me, that's okay.

You have the software, you should have the right to use it as you wish, even if that means using non-free firmware (because of features using annoying patents from the IP warlords).

We can talk about an ideal world where everything is FOSS, and this is a good direction, but limiting support to people because non-free drivers or restrictive licenses is very user unfriendly... like those years with "ndiswrapper", being the main annoyance to anyone who tried to move out from Windows/OSX.