Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[David Kastrup]

Helmut Eller <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 10 2015, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> It is not speculation but nonsense.  LLVM is already released under
>> GPL compatible terms.  They _are_ already giving us permission for
>> all we could ask of them.
>
> They are also giving NVIDIA permission to do whatever it likes to do
> with it.
>
>> You can make a GPL-only release of LLVM today if you
>> want to.  This "they could say that they prefer to help NVIDIA than to
>> help the FSF" is a load of bollocks.
>
> A hypothetical GNU LLVM project that is distinct from the original
> project would have a hard time to attract people.

And whose fault is that?  Why would people be interested in a fork whose
primary purpose would be to make the compiler less modular and stop it
from interoperating with modules they might want to write?

Because non-modularity is exactly what GCC is supposed to provide in
order not to create module boundaries where the reach of the GPL ends.

The current LLVM licensing, community, and architecture does not provide
that temptation.

>> What else do you want?
>
> I, as an individual, don't care.  But the FSF does care very much
> about the distinction between the licenses.  If the FSF stops caring
> about the distinction then it can just declare defeat and stop
> promoting the GPL.

The LLVM is licensed GPL-compatibly.

>> Tell them to dissolve their own community and commit ritual suicide?
>
> Changing the license would hardly be suicide.

It would most definitely cause a fork.  And since the community focuses
on modularity and our compilers must not provide modularity, it would
indeed require taking out the majority of developers to cause enough of
a break of continuity for the GNU project to step up.

At any rate, Chris Lattner _had_ offered integrating LLVM into GCC in
2005.  He did all of the integration work and offered completed
patches.  These patches were rejected.  Partly because bootstrapping
from C++ was undesired (GCC now bootstraps from C++), partly because the
modularity was undesired in GCC.

Modularity is the main point of LLVM.  Chopping it away in order to slap
on a GPL that actually stings is pretty much the same as ritual suicide.
I doubt we'll persuade the whole developer community to do that.

> Apple could still be the main contributor and they managed to survive
> even when they had to use GCC.  It would piss off NVIDIA but it might
> attract some other individuals who don't like the idea that NVIDIA
> profits from their contributions.  Either way, you don't make those
> decisions.

For better or worse, a lot of decisions _have_ been made, _by_ the GNU
project.  These decisions had consequences with companies and
individuals seeking their own solutions for problems that the GNU
project considered too dangerous to approach.  The current situation is
not the outcome of a coordinated attack against the GNU project but
rather the most obvious and natural consequence of our own actions, and
it's time that we started to deal with the consequences of our actions
in a graceful and mature and most particularly not self-destructive
manner.

-- 
David Kastrup