Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 14:23 UTC, submitted by Valhalla
General Development "PathScale announced today that the EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite is now available as an open source project and free download for Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris. This release includes documentation and the complete development stack, including compiler, debugger, assembler, runtimes and standard libraries. EKOPath is the product of years of ongoing development, representing one of the industries highest performance Intel 64 and AMD C, C++ and Fortran compilers." More here.
Permalink for comment 477355
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

lemur2, "So the only sane conclusion from this observation is that whatever the FSF might believe in this scenario is DOUBLY irrelevant." I didn't mean to imply the FSF has any say over EKOPath. If PathScale took the same stance as the FSF but uses the GPL without exceptions, it could be their intent that the open source EKOPath should only be used for GPL code. I agree it sounds ridiculous, but your earlier post made it sound like you weren't aware of the exceptions for GCC, which is why I brought them up.

Here is the actual opinion of the FSF on this topic, in their own words, without any agenda-driven interpretations on top of it:
Q: Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?

A: Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.

The FSF opinion in relation to the copyright law requirement that a derived work results only when a major element of an original work is INCLUDED in another work:

Q: Do I have “fair use” rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?

A: Yes, you do. “Fair use” is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it—in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.

QED. It turns out that the FSF do indeed understand copyright law, and it is only you who is confused.

Your references are now TRIPLY irrelevant to the original question. (PathScale's views are only SINGLY irrelevant).

You are utterly incorrect on this topic, not only according to copyright law itself, but also according to the FSF.

Edited 2011-06-16 04:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4