We have drawn "a line in the sand" against what automagical contracts / legalese restrictions (backed by government force) so-called free software can impose. The Apache license crosses this line.
This transition is very bad news for projects that depend on LLVM, including Julia, Rust, Dlang (LDC), Haskell (GHC's LLVM codegen), Rubinius, etc. And it further vindicates my advocacy of the Nim programming language, which can still work without any non-copyfree dependencies.
The problem is compiled languages. With interpreted languages like FORTH or shell, licensing is rendered a moot point, because you can always read the source code anyway. There needs to be a concerted effort based around a truly simple, non-object oriented, Assembly-based implementation of FORTH, with diffs made available for each platform as required.
2 comments
0 u/libman [OP] 21 Dec 2018 21:33
While communists have their own definition of "free software", people who care about genuine freedom (ex. the Copyfree Initiative, Theo de Raddt / OpenBSD, etc) know better.
We have drawn "a line in the sand" against what automagical contracts / legalese restrictions (backed by government force) so-called free software can impose. The Apache license crosses this line.
This transition is very bad news for projects that depend on LLVM, including Julia, Rust, Dlang (LDC), Haskell (GHC's LLVM codegen), Rubinius, etc. And it further vindicates my advocacy of the Nim programming language, which can still work without any non-copyfree dependencies.
0 u/petrus4 22 Dec 2018 11:14
The problem is compiled languages. With interpreted languages like FORTH or shell, licensing is rendered a moot point, because you can always read the source code anyway. There needs to be a concerted effort based around a truly simple, non-object oriented, Assembly-based implementation of FORTH, with diffs made available for each platform as required.