Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > All this anti-LLVM shenanigans is actually very harmful to Emacs
>   > and GCC and only benefits non-GNU software.
>
> You're speaking from assumptions, not facts.  I think all three of those
> claims are mistaken.
>
> In particular, the only harm to Emacs is that I've been unable to
> study the GCC AST issue for a whole month.

It's been around a decade before that.  It's not like making Clang/LLVM
irrelevant is still on our table.  That would have been about five years
ago.

In my book, more harm has been done by making volunteers give up in
disgust on doing useful work on Emacs, GCC, and their integration.

At any rate, it stresses my point that we don't have enough Richard to
reasonably cover all of GNU's decision-making needs without some hard
and fast rules.

And to me some hard and fast rules for interoperation seem feasible:
after all, we can hardly "defend" ourselves against software that is
licensed in GPL-compatible ways.  Any measure against such software will
equally well keep GPLed/GNU software at bay.

-- 
David Kastrup