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 477358
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


"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 answer above is (apparently) referring to this snippet:

"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."

So it's clear cut for editors, but it's not so obviously simple for things like compilers.

"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."

No copyright holder can restrict fair use rights, but I don't see how this is at all relevant to this discussion? Are you suggesting that we have a fair use right to use GCC without a license? I really don't understand what you are getting at.

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

Perhaps I am, but I brought up relevant points, and it appears that you are no less confused than I am.

"Your references are now TRIPLY irrelevant to the original question. You are utterly incorrect on this topic, not only according to copyright law itself, but also according to the FSF."

Wow...what did I trigger to make you lash out like this? While you were counting irrelevant levels of irrelevance, I think you forgot to ponder why the FSF has GPL exceptions for GCC.

Reply Parent Score: 2