Somewhat. Stallman claims to have tried to make it modular,[0] but also that he wants to avoid "misuse of [the] front ends".[1]

The idea is that you should link the front and back ends, to prevent out-of-process GPL runarounds. But because of that, the mingling of the front and back ends ended up winning out over attempts to stay modular.

[0]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...

[1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...

▲ phkahler 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

>> The idea is that you should link the front and back ends, to prevent out-of-process GPL runarounds.

Valid points, but also the reason people wanting to create a more modular compiler created LLVM under a different license - the ultimate GPL runaround. OTOH now we have two big and useful compilers!

▲ Croak 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When gcc was built most compilers were proprietary. Stallman wanted a free compiler and to keep it free. The GPL license is more restrictive, but it's philosophy is clear. At the end of the day the code's writer can choose if and how people are allowed to use it. You don't have to use it, you can use something else or build you own. And maybe, just maybe Linux is thriving while Windows is dying because in the Linux ecosystem everybody works together and shares, while in Windows everybody helps together paying for Satya Nadellas next yacht.

	▲	Y_Y 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> At the end of the day the code's writer can choose if and how people are allowed to use it. If it's free software then I can modify and use it as I please. What's limited is redistributing the modified code (and offering a service to users over a network for Afferro). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition

▲ colechristensen 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good lord Stallman is such a zealot and hypocrite. It's not open vs. closed it's mine vs. yours and he's openly declaring that he's nerfing software in order to prevent people from using it in a way he doesn't like. And refusing to talk about it in public because normal people hate that shit "misunderstanding" him.

--- From the post:

I let this drop back in March -- please forgive me.

  > Maybe that's the issue for GCC, but for Emacs the issue is to get detailed
  > info out of GCC, which is a different problem.  My understanding is that
  > you're opposed to GCC providing this useful info because that info would
  > need to be complete enough to be usable as input to a proprietary
  > compiler backend.

My hope is that we can work out a kind of "detailed output" that is enough for what Emacs wants, but not enough for misuse of GCC front ends.

I don't want to discuss the details on the list, because I think that would mean 50 messages of misunderstanding and tangents for each message that makes progress. Instead, is there anyone here who would like to work on this in detail?

▲

bigfishrunning 6 days ago | parent [-]

He should just re-license GCC to close whatever perceived loophole, instead of actively making GCC more difficult to work with (for everyone!). RMS has done so much good, but he's so far from an ideal figure.

▲

tovej 6 days ago | parent [-]

How in the world would you relicense GCC

▲

colechristensen 6 days ago | parent [-]

Most contributions are required to assign copyright to the FSF, so it's not actually particularly open.

If the FSF is the sole copyright owner they're free to relicense it however they please, if no one else has any controlling interest of the copyright, the GPL doesn't restrict you from relicensing something you're the sole owner of (and it's doubtful there's a legal mechanism to give away rights to something you continue to own)

Again, the FSF under Stallman isn't about freedom it's about control.

	▲	tovej 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		"Most" is not all, and I doubt rights have been turned over since the beginning. Either way, it would just create a GPL fork.

▲ giancarlostoro 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That sounds like Stallman wants proprietary OSS ;)

If you're going to make it hard for anyone anywhere to integrate with your open source tooling for fear of commercial projects abusing them and not ever sharing their changes, why even use the GPL license?

	▲	dhosek 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is a big part of why I’ve always eschewed GPL.