Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PathScale Open-Sources The EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • updte:
    i got this message on twitter from CTOPathScale:
    That's because you're a lazy idiot who can't read a license on the top of the source files. Please go troll elsewhere

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Geri View Post
      updte:
      i got this message on twitter from CTOPathScale:
      That's because you're a lazy idiot who can't read a license on the top of the source files. Please go troll elsewhere
      Wow. Must be a bad day at the office for Mr. Bergstrom.

      It's not like this was completely obvious:
      • Michael didn't mention it in his articles, nor did PathScale mention this fact in their press release.
      • There's no published FAQ or licensing Q&A about the EkoPath open-sourcing. Even Nokia was sane enough to provide a very user-friendly youtube video and "checkbox matrix" for Qt, to help people decide if they need the GPL or proprietary license.
      • Everyone knows GCC is licensed under the GPLv3, and most people assumed that the licensing worked out so that you can compile software with GCC under any license you want. Personally, I thought the reason for this was that the compiled software was not considered a "derivative work" of the compiler, any more than an .odt saved by OpenOffice.org would be considered a derivative work of OpenOffice. But apparently there is a tacit consensus in the industry that compiled programs are a derivative work of the compiler, and GCC works around this by providing a license exception, essentially reducing to the same thing as licensing GCC under the LGPL (as far as I can tell; there may be subtle differences).
      • I had heard that EkoPath would be licensed under a smattering of different licenses, because the sources are pulled from different projects and companies. So my best guess as to how to interpret EkoPath's license was "free software-ish soup", kind of like the Mozilla tri-license situation, where you can pretty much do anything free software-ish with it. But only being allowed to distribute GPL-compatible programs compiled by EkoPath is a much more restrictive clause than I expected.

      I've read Stallman's "Free Software, Free Society" from cover to cover; I read Groklaw voraciously for years; I have read tens of essays and articles by Stallman, Lessig, Moglen, Eric S. Raymond and others, on the topic of free and open source licensing. I would say I'm about as well-versed in the minutiae of software licensing as anyone else, except for the fact that I'm not a lawyer. And this issue still confused me, and took me completely by surprise.

      If it confused me, how many other people do you think it would trip up?

      Geri, you are most definitely not a troll, in my opinion. You asked a valid question and Mr. Bergstrom felt it necessary to belittle you rather than simply answer the question in a civil and satisfactory manner. I feel that PathScale is entitled to make what ever licensing decisions they wish for their project, and I respect their decision; however, I am even more shocked about the way Mr. Bergstrom has handled this issue than about the reality of the license situation itself.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Geri View Post
        updte:
        i got this message on twitter from CTOPathScale:
        That's because you're a lazy idiot who can't read a license on the top of the source files. Please go troll elsewhere
        You are either:

        1. Making this shit up
        2. Being trolled by someone impersonating the pathscale cto.

        Comment


        • CTO - it's not him you should be asking in the first place for clarification. He sounds a little ticked to me because he'd get that sort of question in places where it's really not meant for.
          Two things there are: a) he's right, and understandable why he'd be annoyed, and b) they (pathscale) probably should have realised that it would happen, and be a bit calmer about it.

          Comment


          • The scarry, yes, its him, the cto.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
              Everyone knows GCC is licensed under the GPLv3, and most people assumed that the licensing worked out so that you can compile software with GCC under any license you want. Personally, I thought the reason for this was that the compiled software was not considered a "derivative work" of the compiler, any more than an .odt saved by OpenOffice.org would be considered a derivative work of OpenOffice. But apparently there is a tacit consensus in the industry that compiled programs are a derivative work of the compiler, and GCC works around this by providing a license exception, essentially reducing to the same thing as licensing GCC under the LGPL (as far as I can tell; there may be subtle differences).
              Uhm, nope. The exception applies to the parts of the GCC code that get included in the compiled program (this is what makes it a derivative work). Headers for example get #included in the program. The code of those headers would then infect the program with the GPL. Thus, an exception for those headers is needed.

              Comment


              • from CTOPathScale:
                That's because you're a lazy idiot who can't read a license on the top of the source files. Please go troll elsewhere
                Ha. I'm starting to like the guy already

                I'm not sure why some people here seem shocked by this comment. I totally agree with him here. Better be straight to the point and make your point clear. So hopefully Geri gets the message and stops wasting his time.

                Of course Geri has to make a big fuss about this, on his blog, on twitter, and also here on phoronix. Because that's what trolls do.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Geri View Post
                  The scarry, yes, its him, the cto.
                  [citation needed]

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                    [citation needed]
                    read back at allquixotic replies


                    ---
                    Btw i not any more interested in this conv., its overdiscussed, overciticated, etc.
                    If somebody want other details, please read back the messages, and if the answer is not there, throw me personal message or email.
                    Last edited by Geri; 06-27-2011, 06:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                      Personally, I thought the reason for this was that the compiled software was not considered a "derivative work" of the compiler, any more than an .odt saved by OpenOffice.org would be considered a derivative work of OpenOffice. But apparently there is a tacit consensus in the industry that compiled programs are a derivative work of the compiler, and GCC works around this by providing a license exception
                      As I understand it, the problem has nothing to do with your own code being compiled by GCC. It's the fact that the C and C++ runtimes are GPL licensed. Therefore, whenever you call a built in function (like malloc() for example) you are calling code that is licensed as GPL, which then extends into your own program code. The GCC exception just allows you to bypass GPL requirements for these runtime functions linked in by the compiler.

                      An .odt file doesn't actually include anything more than xml, it's up to the program running to interpret it. Whereas something compiled with GCC actually patches in code that has been licensed GPL.
                      Last edited by smitty3268; 06-27-2011, 08:44 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X