A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech]

---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:09 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
> To: "NightStrike" <nightstrike@gmail.com>, "Ville Voutilainen" <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
> > 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.  Intel, IBM, nVidia, etc. are
>
> I think this is a blinkered view.  Sure, there are companies that build
> proprietary toolchains using llvm as the base but I would argue that it
> is the *result* of the rise of llvm and not the cause.

> The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler
> researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than
> gcc because compiler-as-a-library.  License may have been a factor for
> some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free
> enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding
> that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves.

Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the
3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of
free software.  Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving
him a team to work on LLVM.

> It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a
> larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that
> ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make
> proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library.

Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala
began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command
the ISS.  He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat.
This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything
to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.

> Of computer science graduates I have encountered over the last decade, I
> know few who started their journey with gcc and they were all in the
> initial part of the decade.  In recent years I don't think I encountered
> any student who works on gcc; many even start with the assumption that
> gcc is in maintenance mode.
>
> So to summarize, the reasons why llvm is gaining traction *today* (I'm
> sure there are more):
>
> - Compiler-as-a-library - llvm is the first choice in FOSS projects and
> use cases are exploding with gcc nowhere in sight
>
> - Mindshare - most students and researchers are focused on it
>
> - Funding - llvm has a much stronger funding ecosystem than gcc.  This
> includes direct funding from the foundation and development workforce
> from various organizations and universities.
>
> - License - Companies are building proprietary solutions on top of llvm.
>
> Siddhesh
>