If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
PathScale Open-Sources The EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite
The only conversations I've seen containing Geri_ nickname in #pathscale since the day Michael announced the PathScale EkoPath open sourcing:
[16:01:32] <_Geri_> i installed newest mingw, its unbelievably bad. the compiler can crash to sticks from including simpe built-in headers. -Wno-write-strings is not working, writing ~20.000 warning to every code that older than 3 year...
[16:01:43] <_Geri_> its size is 8x bigger than the previous versions
[16:02:00] <_Geri_> lot headers lack of important typedefs and defines
[16:02:10] <_Geri_> no wonder, its a gnu product with gnu quality
[16:02:15] <_Geri_> its time to try pathscale
[16:11:32] <trn> If that is mingw64, I know some builds are extremely questionable.
[16:14:25] <_Geri_> this is 32 bit
[16:24:29] <codestr0m> _Geri_: please don't rant about gnu here
[16:26:02] <_Geri_> *rant*?
(the conversation died after that.)
[09:46:55] <_Geri_> if i compile a closed source program with the opensource eko, it will be able to run on other linuxes without special runtimes?
(There was no response to this in the public channel.)
Later on today, after a few hours:
[13:05:27] <_Geri_> khm
[13:05:28] <_Geri_> [15:41:13] <_Geri_> if i compile a closed source program with the opensource eko, it will be able to run on other linuxes without special runtimes?
[13:05:34] <_Geri_> hints?
[13:06:00] <-- lyming (~email@example.com) has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[13:06:31] <codestr0m> _Geri_: screw off?
[13:06:44] -*- codestr0m doesn't like license trolls
[13:06:54] <_Geri_> ...what?
[13:07:01] <codestr0m> )
[13:07:22] <_Geri_> ...so ekos license does not allows to compile commercial programs with it?
[13:07:24] <_Geri_> isnt it gpl?
[13:07:42] <david_chisnall> Doesn't sound like a license troll, just someone asking if the license for the runtime stuff allows redistribution linked to binary-only stuff.
[13:07:43] <codestr0m> _Geri_: if you sit quietly around here you can stay...
[13:07:51] <Triskelios> codestr0m: dude, that's a technical question about runtime requirements
[13:08:18] -*- _Geri_ distinct himself from pathscale at this point.
[13:08:20] <-- _Geri_ (~Geri_@host-91-147-222-15.cellkabel.hu) has left #pathscale ("So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!")
[13:08:40] <codestr0m> david_chisnall: 1) I'm not a lawyer.. nor his lawyer 2) the runtime license are available no github.. even the most lazy arsehole can look (and see they aren't GPL)
[13:09:07] <codestr0m> 3) I didn't like the guy
[13:09:16] <nbjoerg> it really just sounded like a question about whether the libraries need to be shipped
[13:09:19] <codestr0m> I've not liked him for a long time
[13:09:32] -*- codestr0m IANAL
[13:10:27] <Triskelios> codestr0m: way to not pay attention
[13:10:56] <codestr0m> Triskelios: if you don't know me a little by now....
(and the conversation relevant to this thread died after that.)
So unless Geri_ has been around in #pathscale since before the day PathScale made their EkoPath press release, then I can't see a specific reason why codestr0m would have "not liked him for a long time" -- just over 24 hours? About two issues? One of them an off-topic rant (can be easily ignored) and one of them a very legitimate question?
I don't want to misinterpret codestr0m, but it sounds like we've touched on a sensitive spot here. If indeed it is the case that the runtime libraries are licensed differently in such a way as to prevent the use of compiled binaries in proprietary applications, that is a major disadvantage of using the EkoPath compiler (technical difficulties aside).
As for his suggestion to "check in git", I decided to be a lazy arsehole and try to find the runtime license. But the only license mention I can find is in the COPYING file, which just says this (link to github).
So I'm a little confused. I did a spot check of source files in various directories, and the only licenses I saw were GPL3, LGPL2.1+, and GPL2+.
Also: don't call me out for copying "your" IRC logs. IRC is a public channel and your speech is not protected by copyright there. You can't claim rights on your IRC messages any more than you can claim rights on saying "I am a jelly donut!" on a crowded public bus.
I highly doubt the CTO would make such idiotic comments.
His whois is ~codestr0m@unaffiliated/codestr0m. I know for a fact that codestr0m is the nickname/handle of the CTO of PathScale (he's even posted on the Phoronix forums under that name). No one would be able to impersonate his nickname for more than about 2 minutes without NickServ forcibly renaming them to a guest account, because they would have to know his nickserv password.
Basically, there is fairly good evidence that the comments made by codestr0m were from the PathScale CTO. And furthermore, it's not just Geri_ posting those logs; I found them independently in my Quassel chat buffer.
yeah and you can not compile closed source software with a gpl'ed compiler without an exception like FSF's gcc exception. Which has been known for ages and everybody who is able use google might find that for himself.