One software freedom that Stallman does not mention is the freedom *not* to use the program because you dislike or don't want it for some reason
Free software tends to be flexible, have clear boundaries, split responsibilities, and replaceable components, thanks in part to openly defined protocols and formats
Proprietary software tends to want to lock you in into their freaking ecosystem, and even if they adopt an open standard, it's a part of an E-E-E strategy
@lanodan which undocumented extensions are you talking about? Sure, the Hurd, GNU libc, GCC, etc. all extend classical Unix/C in interesting ways, and the documentation is not always perfect; but that's just from a lack of manpower, not an act of intentionally locking people in. In fact most GNU software is written in a way that *doesn't* require other GNU system components or extensions, making it very portable. This is the opposite of lock-in.
@lanodan he's made it very clear why he opposes clang/LLVM, and it's not on a technical basis:
"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."
@bugaevc I think that what @lanodan tried to explain is that by the very same argumentation that you exposed at the beginning (software modularity), LLVM should be considered as a good thing: it enables you to plug any software (being proprietary or not) to the software generating the LLVM code. This is good precisely because it doesn't force the user to pick one particular software in the link, and can even choose not to use a free software for a part of the compilation chain. The magic is that this isn't even a matter of licences: a proprietary software can communicate with a free one.
In other words: interoperability is good, because it makes software chains modular.
@MartinShadok can't argue with that; it's awesome that LLVM is this modular!
The problem that Stallman sees here is that it's not only the user who can do this, it's also an upstream proprietary frontend developer, who would then distribute the resulting non-free compiler and thus deprive users of their freedom.
@MartinShadok LLVM is of course what enables the proprietary compiler writer to do this all while keeping it proprietary, this wouldn't happen with GCC or if LLVM was copylefted.
Case in point, the Objective-C frontend to GCC is only free software because Steve Jobs was obliged by GPL to release it as free software; it would've been proprietary otherwise. Then years later, Apple has sponsored LLVM development under a permissive license; guess you can see the logic.
@bugaevc One could still add a GPL endpoint to GCC from any intermediary language (SSA, for instance) and do the same. LLVM is just an intermediary language that a lot of compilers have to agree on anyway. I really wouldn't blame LLVM for enabling people to make software, be it proprietary.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!