On 12/11/2012 13:20, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > On 12-11-2012 13:51, Lukasz Sokol wrote: >> On 11/11/2012 08:48, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >>> On 11-11-2012 6:55, microcode-ytc+ihgo...@public.gmane.org wrote: >>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:57:09PM +0100, Jonas Maebe wrote: > > On 10 >>>> Nov 2012, at 19:38, microcode-ytc+ihgo...@public.gmane.org wrote: > > > On >>>> Sat, Nov 10, 2012 >>>> at 06:20:29PM +0100, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > >> Has anybody tried >>>> the Pathscale debugger on Linux x64/FreeBSD? > >> > >> I haven't myself, >>>> just heard that they open sourced their compiler suite. > >> > >> A >>>> download page seems to be here: > >> > <snip> >>> [2] >>> http://www.pathscale.com/pdf/PathScale_Software_License.pdf >> >> See in that file, article 3.1 and 3.2. In short, Pathscale's portions cannot >> be used however you want. > > Yep, 3.1 says the license is assigned to you as a person and that you > can use it for internal business purposes. > How this translates to a compiler is a bit weird. IMO, if you're a > software house, writing code and compiling it would be your internal > business purpose, so that would be fine. > > That 3.1 is perhaps a sort of protection against people reselilng the > Pathscale stuff as their own product or something?!? However, any > GPL-licensed software would trump that part of the agreeement anyway... > > 3.3 is covered in your other mail.
And to (some) this would be a showstopper: what this means, is that you can (if possible) compile the Pathscale portions, but your application can't /include/ their source code, (you have to link to the binary instead?), and no source code of Pathscale stuff can be distributed to outside your /internal/ purpose. > > BTW, I noticed some threads on the Phoronix forum going on about GPL > code being injected into compiled code, which would "contaminate" the > entire binary with the GPL license, so no chance to create a MIT/BSD etc > licensed binary. Well I haven't looked at the code but I think 3.3 implies, that the GPL portions can only use binary linking to pre-compiled Pathscale portions (i.e. have to have their own lib wrappers?) Any idea what the actual portions covered by Pathscale license are ? > > Haven't looked into it further because I only wanted to point out the > debugger could perhaps be a useful alternative to gdb... > Depends if the debugger is covered by GPL or the Pathscale portions, I think. > Thanks, > Reinier > Lukasz (disclaimer: IANAFSOSL, I am not a free software/open source lawyer) _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
