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:
http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath-compiler-suite

Regards,
Reinier

That's if you want a supported official release. The page linked above offers a free download of a nightly snapshot.

Jonas

"I saw that... do not understand license...looks like sales trial...assume"

Well, actually you will get a clear license text when running the installer. It seems you get a license[1] valid until termination by either
- you with a 20 day notice period
- by Pathscale if you're in breach of contract.
No trial.

For fun(!?) I also skimmed the PDF license agreeement on their site [2] which seemed very similar (may be the same) to the license given by the installer.

So I'm glad they generously offer this.

[1]
5.1.Term. This License will take effect as of the Effective date, and will remain in effect until terminated (i) by Customer with or without cause, upon twenty (20) days written notice to Pathscale, or (ii) by Pathscale upon written notice to Customer in the event Customer is in material breach of this License and will have failed to cure such breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice thereof from Pathscale.

[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.

Lukasz

And 3.3 is courious:

3.3. Source Code. No license to use Pathscale Licensed Software in source code form is granted hereunder. Customer may only use Pathscale Licensed Software in binary form.

Hmm.

Agreed, but what source code is provided as "Pathscale Licensed Software"? Obviously not the stuff that is provided under GPL, BSD etc...

<snip>

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.

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.

Haven't looked into it further because I only wanted to point out the debugger could perhaps be a useful alternative to gdb...

Thanks,
Reinier

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.

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)

No.

No, I don't think so. Either way I can use it for my internal business purposes, if only in binary form.
Other people can download it and use it as well, etc.

I'm not soliciting legal advise and this is generally the wrong place to ask/debate such questions. I strongly recommend you consult one of the many professional and or pro bono legal resources available to open source projects.

Having said all this
-------------------------------------------
Check out path64-suite README on github for EKOPath 4 https://github.com/path64/

EKOPath 5 and ENZO are substantially different and will have different licensing restrictions/permissions
-------------------------------------------
pathscale.com is not intended to be a gateway to the open source version and or community support for that in any way. That could possibly be in error and or change, but In the original press release we give those details.

PathScale wrote

I'm not soliciting legal advise and this is generally the wrong place to ask/debate such questions. I strongly recommend you consult one of the many professional and or pro bono legal resources available to open source projects.

I think this actually is the right place to debate legal questions relating to FPC development/inclusion in FPC source etc. But I understand not all of us enjoy legal debates when we could be programming ;)

Check out path64-suite README on github for EKOPath 4 https://github.com/path64/

Couldn't find readme in this repo (opened the debugger and the compiler ones)... assuming you meant this:
https://github.com/pathscale/path64-suite
=> Ok, that basically contains build instructions

EKOPath 5 and ENZO are substantially different and will have different licensing restrictions/permissions

Ok.

pathscale.com is not intended to be a gateway to the open source version and or community support for that in any way. That could possibly be in error and or change, but In the original press release we give those details.

Ok so you're saying you're keeping the commercial/license model separate from the open source version.

I understand... which would make any conclusions from licenses, documents etc from pathscale.com not necessarily valid/relevant for whatever is on github... and vice versa.

Thanks,
Reinier