PathScale Open-Sources The EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite

[XorEaxEax]

WARNING

it seems, peoples are NOT alowed to share binaries compiled with the opensourceEkoPath!

http://linuxcommercial.blogspot.com/...ke-is-lie.html

Based on you being told to leave an irc channel? From the excerpt you posted it seems very strange that you would be asked to leave, but something tells me this is only part of the conversation and that whatever codestrom was pissed about was something discussed earlier and outside of the log you provided. Do you have anything else with which to back your claim?

[Geri]

and there you find this gem:

You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice, consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.

you really should read that site.

you really should read this topic

[energyman]

By the same logic, wouldn't PathScale be obliged to license at least their frontend with the same gcc exception? Their frontend is gcc. Code directly taken from the gcc repositories. Unless the exception explicitly allows you to redistribute the code while opting to remove the exception, they are obliged to provide the same exception to anyone they distribute it to.

Also, there are parts of the PathScale compiler suite that are not licensed under the GPLv3. The parts of their codebase that are not licensed under the GPLv3 don't have the same problem, even without a gcc exception. Let's enumerate the licenses one by one:

MIT/X11: A liberal license with no copyleft clause. You can make proprietary software with MIT/X11 licensed code.
BSD: same as above.
LGPL 2.1 or later: A copyleft license, but it explicitly allows you to make proprietary software with a derived work, as long as you don't modify the original works. So basically, as long as you don't modify the PathScale compiler or runtime while writing your C/C++ application, you can make it proprietary and comply with the LGPLed parts of the code.

The only code in question is GPLv3'ed code that is not part of the gcc frontend, but is written by the PathScale developers. If, indeed, such code exists, and is not licensed with the gcc exception, then yes, there might be a problem where anyone who distributes software compiled by EkoPath is obligated to license it under the GPLv3. That's pretty damn extreme, even for a free software project.

That's a huge, huge problem, if indeed it is the case. Because theoretically you wouldn't even be allowed to compile a BSD or MIT/X11 licensed software with this compiler, because you would violate the copyright license of the software you're compiling by trying to license it under the GPLv3. Would the same apply if you tried to compile LGPLed software?

This looks ugly. Unless I am really misunderstanding something here (such as, the gcc exception really is in effect for the entire compiler project and runtimes), we might have a situation where every program compiled by the PathScale EkoPath compiler either needs to be licensed under a license compatible with the GPLv3, or else you are not allowed to distribute it to anyone other than yourself and/or the company you work for. Wow.

which makes sense for pathscale. GPL compatible software has no problem, everybody else has to buy a licence.

Sounds like a valid business model.

[energyman]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

and there you find this gem:

You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice, consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.

you really should read that site.

[allquixotic]

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.

By the same logic, wouldn't PathScale be obliged to license at least their frontend with the same gcc exception? Their frontend is gcc. Code directly taken from the gcc repositories. Unless the exception explicitly allows you to redistribute the code while opting to remove the exception, they are obliged to provide the same exception to anyone they distribute it to.

Also, there are parts of the PathScale compiler suite that are not licensed under the GPLv3. The parts of their codebase that are not licensed under the GPLv3 don't have the same problem, even without a gcc exception. Let's enumerate the licenses one by one:

MIT/X11: A liberal license with no copyleft clause. You can make proprietary software with MIT/X11 licensed code.
BSD: same as above.
LGPL 2.1 or later: A copyleft license, but it explicitly allows you to make proprietary software with a derived work, as long as you don't modify the original works. So basically, as long as you don't modify the PathScale compiler or runtime while writing your C/C++ application, you can make it proprietary and comply with the LGPLed parts of the code.

The only code in question is GPLv3'ed code that is not part of the gcc frontend, but is written by the PathScale developers. If, indeed, such code exists, and is not licensed with the gcc exception, then yes, there might be a problem where anyone who distributes software compiled by EkoPath is obligated to license it under the GPLv3. That's pretty damn extreme, even for a free software project.

That's a huge, huge problem, if indeed it is the case. Because theoretically you wouldn't even be allowed to compile a BSD or MIT/X11 licensed software with this compiler, because you would violate the copyright license of the software you're compiling by trying to license it under the GPLv3. Would the same apply if you tried to compile LGPLed software?

This looks ugly. Unless I am really misunderstanding something here (such as, the gcc exception really is in effect for the entire compiler project and runtimes), we might have a situation where every program compiled by the PathScale EkoPath compiler either needs to be licensed under a license compatible with the GPLv3, or else you are not allowed to distribute it to anyone other than yourself and/or the company you work for. Wow.

[energyman]

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.

[allquixotic]

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.

[Geri]

allquixotic: That is a public channel. Thanks for posting it here and justifying the log.

[Geri]

which means you have no clue. Because the exception is valid for all gccs.

You are complaining that you can not use opensource software to create closed source crap.

Hypocrite much?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

[energyman]

i am using older gcc's to avoid this problem

which means you have no clue. Because the exception is valid for all gccs.

You are complaining that you can not use opensource software to create closed source crap.

Hypocrite much?