A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech]

I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression
that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license
allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form
without sharing proprietary code. -  NightStrike

You are correct.  LLVM is under the Apache License Version 2.0, which is a
free software license compatible with the GNU GPL Version 3.0.

But the license comes with LLVM Exceptions that nullifies the Apache License,
because it then allows others to embedded their work into object form.
Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing patent
treachery.  The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to
allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.

Consequently, the LLVM Owners are being extremely dishonest, because they
are using the words "Apache License" to trick people into believing that
the LLVM License has anything to do with free software.  It does not.

Regards
Christopher