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.
Thread beginning with comment 477358
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

lemur2,

"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

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

lemur2, "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.


Sigh!

There is a concerted effort in anti-free-software camp to spread FUD and misinformation about the GPL. Your triply-irrelevant argument sure reads to me like more of the same.

So, here again was the original question: "Would binaries made with this software be in any legal danger if it is licensed under a different license than the compiler tools?"

The answer to this quetions is NO, NO, NO, binaries made with this software would NOT NOT NOT be in any legal danger if it is licensed under a different license than the compiler tools.

The three-times-over assetrion of "NO" comes about because:
(1) Copyright law itself says that the license of the compiler has no bearing on code you complile with it if that code does not include the source code of the compiler itself.

(2) Although the GPL was written by the FSF, the FSF did not write the EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite, and so any opionion of the FSF has nothing to do with the EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite.

(3) Even if the FSF view on this topic had anything to do with it, that view is clearly stated in the FSF FAQ ... "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." What could be clearer?

Your argument is, so far, three-times-over wrong.

Now let's look at your reference to the GPLv3 exceptions, and the stated intent of the FSF regarding that:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

Here is the up-front text explaining the intent of the FSF:
The licenses for some libraries that accompany GCC have not been changed yet. These libraries are automatically used by the object code that GCC produces. Because of that, if these libraries were simply distributed only under the terms of the GPL, all the object code that GCC produces would have to be distributed under the same terms. However, the FSF decided long ago to allow developers to use GCC's libraries to compile any program, regardless of its license. Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog.

Therefore, these libraries have always had license exceptions that allow people to distribute the object code GCC produces under any license. We are now moving these libraries to GPLv3 and updating their exceptions. Our fundamental policy has not changed; the new license is meant to permit all the uses of GCC that were permitted before.


So, you see, using GCC means that the produced program does necessarily end up INCLUDING some libraries from GCC itself. The exceptions are therefore required, even with GPLv3, to ALLOW "people to distribute the object code GCC produces under any license", not prevent it.

So, apart from the fact that your code is your code and you license it however you want, apart from the way that copyright law works in regard to derived works, apart from the fact that PathScale is not the FSF, apart from the stated top-level intent of the FSF to allow people to use GPL code for any purpose (including to write nonfree code if they want to), it turns out that you are still wrong about the GPL exemptions because they have the exact opposite intent to what you imagined.

This makes you, now, quintuply wrong with respect to the original question.

Edited 2011-06-16 06:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lemur2,

"There is a concerted effort in anti-free-software camp to spread FUD and misinformation about the GPL."

I'm merely trying to understand why a GPL exception is needed for GCC and not EKOPath? Maybe it's a mountain out of a molehill, but I honestly want to know.


"The answer to this quetions is NO, NO, NO, binaries made with this software would NOT NOT NOT be in any legal danger if it is licensed under a different license than the compiler tools."

Man you are dense, the question is whether one is allowed to use a GPL compiler to build non-GPL code (see title). I never suggested that anyone would be punitively forced to release their code as GPL if they were in violation of the GPL.


"So, you see, using GCC means that the produced program does necessarily end up INCLUDING some libraries from GCC itself. The exceptions are therefore required, even with GPLv3, to ALLOW 'people to distribute the object code GCC produces under any license', not prevent it."

The passage you quoted (from my link, btw) agrees that the exception was designed to allow the compiler to be used to produce non GPL binaries, the implication being that without the exception, compiling non-GPL code would not be allowed (and anyways, the gnu-C libraries are LGPL).


"(1) Copyright law itself says that the license of the compiler has no bearing on code you complile with it if that code does not include the source code of the compiler itself."

You ignored my post here:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?477352

"(2) Although the GPL was written by the FSF, the FSF did not write the EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite, and so any opionion of the FSF has nothing to do with the EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite."

You ignored my post here:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?477354


"(3) Even if the FSF view on this topic had anything to do with it, that view is clearly stated in the FSF FAQ ... "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." What could be clearer?"


You ignored my post here:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?477358


"Your arguement is, so far, three-times-wrong."

You're one ignorant dude.


"This makes you, now, quintuply wrong with respect to the original question."

What happened to quadruply?

I'm not trying to win a debate here, just trying to get an answer, you just seem to be obsessed with trolling.

Edit: I don't see a point in continuing this, and I'm sure you feel the same way.

Edited 2011-06-16 06:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

See long rant in post below; you've got an incorrect definition of "derivative work" that's leading you into trouble.

The F.A.Q. snippet that you're trying to portray as a derivative of something else is stand-alone, and it's telling you exactly what lemur and I are trying to tell you: the product of a software tool is not itself a derivative work of that tool, unless and only if it includes substantial portions of that tool. Which is essentially what "...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)" means in plain English.

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.


First, you're really having to try, hard, to get the readings out of these texts that you are. They're in many cases specifically telling you that the tools license never applies to its product, not just as a quirk of the GPL but as a matter of course, and you're somehow getting from that that "ZOMG GPL APPLIES TO ALL GCC-GENERATE OBJECT CODE." Which is crazy.

Second, this is old, dead (I thought) F.U.D. It's frustrating to see it cropping up again.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

boldingd,

"See long rant in post below; you've got an incorrect definition of 'derivative work' that's leading you into trouble."

I unadvisedly used "derivative work" instead of "covered work" as the GPL3 uses. The GPL3 is no longer dependent on a legal definition of "derivative work" since it doesn't use the term anywhere.

Reply Parent Score: 2