[fpc-pascal] Re: Pathscale: alternative debugger on Linux?

[Lukasz Sokol]

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+IHgoah0 at 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+IHgoah0 at 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)