RMS:There's "A Systematic Effort To Attack GNU Packages":

13 risposte [Ultimo contenuto]
t3g
t3g
Offline
Iscritto: 05/15/2011
onpon4
Offline
Iscritto: 05/30/2012

LLVM is absolutely something to be concerned about. It's permissively licensed, and this of course invites all kinds of proprietary extensions to it. To reason that this might be deliberate isn't that great of a stretch, especially when you consider it was largely funded by Apple.

tomlukeywood
Offline
Iscritto: 12/05/2014

it looks like Apple Google and nivadia
based on the email addresses in this CODE_OWNERS.txt file:
http://pastebin.com/hDxizadv

i uploaded it to paste-bin it wasn’t there already

if you want the original file its in this archive:
http://llvm.org/releases/3.5.1/llvm-3.5.1.src.tar.xz

J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Offline
Iscritto: 06/09/2014

name at domain wrote:
> LLVM is absolutely something to be concerned about. It's permissively
> licensed, and this of course invites all kinds of proprietary extensions
> to it. To reason that this might be deliberate isn't that great of a
> stretch, especially when you consider it was largely funded by Apple.

Brad Kuhn has had interesting things to say on this ground -- his talk
at LCA2015
(http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_2/Thursday/Considering_the_Future_of_Copyleft_How_Will_The_Next_Generation_Perceive_GPL.webm)
includes that LLVM already has non-Free extensions. Apple will probably
stop contributing to LLVM when LLVM gets to a point when it's useful
enough to them just as he points out how "Apple sends /just enough/ back
to BSDs in resources to keep the core they need." (slide 13 of 28).

Also consider that NeXT was caught violating GPLv2 (GCC's license at the
time of NeXT's GCC derivative) and the FSF defended their copyright (the
first major GPL violation, if I recall correctly). Steve Jobs and the
rest of Apple that came from NeXT probably never forgot this and decided
to distance themselves from GPL-covered software, particularly that
whose copyright was held by anyone who would enforce it. Kuhn talked
about this on an episode of his OggCast "Free as in Freedom". CUPS no
longer qualifies here since Apple bought CUPS when Apple purchased Easy
Software Products in 2007, but GCC certainly does. I believe this too is
a motivating factor which helps explain why Apple is so eager to end
their dependence on GCC.

As people depend more on LLVM and move away from GCC, they put
themselves in a position where using non-Free LLVM software (a non-Free
LLVM derivative, non-Free LLVM add-ons) becomes more attractive in order
to not have to switch back to GCC. Another argument posited by those who
favor the Open Source movement is code quality without any consideration
of software freedom; as LLVM gains features and Open Source advocates
talk without raising software freedom as an issue, people learn to weigh
programs based on features. This means more people depend on non-Free
software in the end. A few popular add-ons that implement widely-desired
and possibly patented features, and LLVM hackers are blocked from
implementing those features in LLVM.

Had LLVM been licensed with a strong copyleft (AGPLv3 or later, for
instance) this move to non-freedom would not be a concern as derivative
works would also be Free Software. Contributors would have to weigh
writing their own compilers to get the power over users they apparently
want. Given their history, it's a safe bet neither Qualcomm nor Apple
(two major LLVM contributors) would have written their own compiler and
we'd all have more Free Software that remains Free.

In a way, Kuhn's talk is pretty much a response to this very issue.

doolio
Offline
Iscritto: 12/31/2013

Hi J.B., it may be just me but the Bradley Kuhn webm talk is corrupt in some way. It basically stops working when he is on slide 10 ... any ideas? Thanks.

J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Offline
Iscritto: 06/09/2014

name at domain wrote:
> Hi J.B., it may be just me but the Bradley Kuhn webm talk is corrupt in
> some way. It basically stops working when he is on slide 10 ... any
> ideas? Thanks.

Try downloading the file and playing it with VLC or mplayer. Either of
these players ought to skip past the corrupted parts and keep playing.

If the file is corrupted, that would be an issue for the website
hosters, not me. I recommend contacting the people who run linux.conf.au
asking them to see if the mirrors are corrupt and giving them whatever
evidence of file corruption you have.

Another alternative is to check the mirror at
http://mirror.slingshot.co.nz/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_2/Thursday/Considering_the_Future_of_Copyleft_How_Will_The_Next_Generation_Perceive_GPL.webm
and see if that works better.

When I downloaded the copy at
http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_2/Thursday/Considering_the_Future_of_Copyleft_How_Will_The_Next_Generation_Perceive_GPL.webm
I get SHA-1 hash 801d54b687472bc29d9461182e0b6ca0f0452fba. I don't know
if that's the correct hash for the file because I see no hash listing.

davidnotcoulthard (non verificato)
davidnotcoulthard

Scarier still were the responses some posters gave, knowing less than they think they did.

Jabjabs
Offline
Iscritto: 07/05/2014

Oh dear some of those are terrible! There is still a lot of work to be done even just within the immediate community.

t3g
t3g
Offline
Iscritto: 05/15/2011

The worry in the long run is that LLVM becomes the preferred compiler, but the core version is weak and watered down due to companies keeping their features and improvements to themselves and never releasing source code.

Garsmith
Offline
Iscritto: 07/27/2013

My comment regarding RMS comment "A Systematic Effort To Attack GNU Packages".

"The system" want power over the people at every level and that is why it removes and attacks alternatives for freedom outside of the system. In Sweden example the propaganda is hard regarding getting rid of cash. Majority of bank office now dont accept cash. With credit card you identify with your person and that card can be shut down and you can be cut of from all your money at any second. Same with smart meters in homes (Everything called smart is in reality bad for people but good for "the system"), cameras everywhere, black boxes in cars, remote disable cars, listen through mobile phones in rooms. Printers have their yellow dot syndrome/feature. Maybe to track "terrorist" leaflets source.

Why would not "the system" also attack the only realistic alternative (.....i know...) to freedom in computers at peoples homes? Their is probably more security holes but not known TO THE PUBLIC in GNU+Linux. I would surprised if GNU+Linux did not have security holes in the code deliberately added by "the system". I would not be surprised if Intels Boot Guard lock is a attempt to block Free Software by force because CoreBoot/Libreboot now start working on newer and newer hardware and removing spy features from "the system" at the core in computers.

"The system" is a parasite and lives on the peoples work. We work and they take the profit of it and parasite on us. "The system" is depending on us but we are not depending on them. They are holding us down and deliberately try to destroy and remove everything that give the people freedom from "the system"/parasite. They must hold us down because if they wouldnt they would die. This is why big corporations and big government want to control everything. This is why huge taxes and just crap in return. Less money for you and then depended on what the government give you for health service, pension, education (indoctrination) and more.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Offline
Iscritto: 07/24/2010

I very much doubt rms is talking about an attack from "the system". In fact, I think rms would tell you are are talking about different topics that ought to be treated separately.

Like J.B. Nicholson-Owens, I think rms suspects Apple behind the current actions against the copyleft. http://www.occupygpl.org certainly is the best example. You can find relevant comments on that website in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/freesoftware/comments/2verea/occupy_gpl_the_movement_to_encourage_the_usage_of

tomlukeywood
Offline
Iscritto: 12/05/2014

why would someone make a anti GPL site and not a anti EULA
site for the reasons that the GPL is too restrictive? -.-

lembas
Offline
Iscritto: 05/13/2010

I think this is an excellent question to ask! The answer being they only dislike GPL but love their proprietary EULAs.

People who have a problem with copyleft are those who'd like to use GPL'd stuff to build their proprietary crud with.

JaguarSoul87
Offline
Iscritto: 01/31/2015

Everything can be very accurately resumed on RMS's quote "There's a systematic effort to attack GNU packages" he always put a lot of thought in picking his words before point at something specific, that creates a serious potencial danger, like in these case. And what he says in here is a fact that no one can deny (except for those that seems to have short memory ) one of the most recent similar issues that comes to mind is Microsoft/Novell and their MONO bullshit, that was, and still is, a serious treat for the GPL itself. From my point of view, seems that Apple has been tacking notes, and their move further now at attacking with LLVM at one critical essential part of the GNU system like it is GCC. And same as MONO, it might not seem dangerous by itself, but are the interests of the big corporations behind it what makes it dangerous enough to consider it an treat/attack.

So it's indeed a very obvious systematic effort on atacking GNU packages and the GPL, they are always trying to filter their crap to attack from inside, it isn't the first time and wont be the last one.