PathScale Open-Sources The EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite

[allquixotic]

Thank God for Quassel.

The only conversations I've seen containing Geri_ nickname in #pathscale since the day Michael announced the PathScale EkoPath open sourcing:

June 26:

[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.)

Today:

[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 protected]) 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_ ([email protected]) 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.

[Geri]

first of all: who can guarantee that this 'log' is correct? What might be hiding in the missing parts?

Second, google 'Gcc exception'. First hit. Read it.

If you compile a closed source program with a compiler under the gpl you might be in trouble. Something google could have told you.

i am using older gcc's to avoid this problem

[energyman]

first of all: who can guarantee that this 'log' is correct? What might be hiding in the missing parts?

Second, google 'Gcc exception'. First hit. Read it.

If you compile a closed source program with a compiler under the gpl you might be in trouble. Something google could have told you.

[bwat47]

I highly doubt the CTO would make such idiotic comments.

[Geri]

looks like it was written by a child

my native language isnt english

[Geri]

That was not a random guy. Hes got op rights and that was the official support channel and i think that was the CTO. Notice the nicknames end: codestr0m


"For the past 2 years PathScale has engaged more and more in the open source community and this marks a turning point with a full commitment, our core product the EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite going open source," says C. Bergstrom, PathScale CTO.

[allquixotic]

That blog post looks like it was written by a child. I wouldn't trust a word it says.

On the other hand, the person he was conversing with (if indeed the chat log isn't forged) is the CTO of PathScale. If he's behaving this way towards the inquirer, either he asked a _really_ stupid question in chat that the blogger chose not to post, or else Mr. Codestrom really hates people/projects who try to use EkoPath for proprietary applications.

However, you have to keep in mind that, if the EkoPath compiler is indeed released under a mix of the unmodified GNU GPL and MIT/X11/BSD licenses, none of those licenses restrict the use of a compiler for proprietary applications in any way. In fact, they would be contradicting the licensing terms upon which they released the software if they tried to prevent you from doing that. This would be as much of a breach of contract (on their behalf) as you violating the terms of the license as written. Any attempt to string you up in court on this point would be dismissed and PathScale would be charged your legal fees.

Of course, with the proprietary / trialware EkoPath as available on their website, that's a whole different story. I have no idea what license that is under, and it may very well prohibit compiling and distributing proprietary applications.

[DeiF]

WARNING

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

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

They haven't said anything about the matter (looking only at that IRC log). They only expressed that they don't like you in a very rude way (which isn't deserved IMO, cause the GPL allows that usage, and you asked nicely).

If it's GPL then there's nothing to worry about, despite what a random guy says in an IRC.

[nuku]

If you compare the nickname, you'll notice that the guy who posted it here is also the author of the blog post.

[bwat47]

WARNING

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

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

That blog post looks like it was written by a child. I wouldn't trust a word it says.