Author Topic: Em::Blocks has forked into EmBlitz  (Read 8381 times)

Offline stahta01

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5969
    • My Best Post
Em::Blocks has forked into EmBlitz
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:50:52 pm »
I like Em::Blocks licensing web page.
http://www.emblocks.org/web/licensing-main

Tim S.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 08:07:55 am by stahta01 »
C Programmer working to learn more about C++ and Git.
On Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 10 32 bit.
On Debian Testing, compiling CB Trunk against wxWidgets 3.0.2.
--
When in doubt, read the CB WiKi FAQ. http://wiki.codeblocks.org

Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10356
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2014, 09:07:30 pm »
Is it possible in Code::Blocks IDE to create a new toolbar or edit the existing?
The only way to create a toolbar at the moment it to write a custom plugin, sorry.
I've it on the todo to implement a scriptable toolbar creation, but I've no time for it at the moment.
<debugger plugin maintainer>
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline ollydbg

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4982
  • OpenCV and Robotics
    • Chinese OpenCV forum moderator
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2014, 01:38:04 am »
I like Em::Blocks licensing web page.
http://www.emblocks.org/web/licensing-main

Tim S.
It has some text mention Codeblocks: http://www.emblocks.org/web/77-homepage/8-history
Quote

History

It all started with the use of Code::Blocks as an IDE for embedded software development as a replacement for other Java written tools which were too slow or unstable.

Impressed by the Scintilla editor capabilities there was a growing wish for more embedded related features instead of the Desktop oriented approach.

Instead of all those options like e.g. a resource compiler or dynamic library builds, we need options for assembler tools and static library buildings. The linker for embedded tools often need more specific information like device type, heap/stack  space or linker script settings.  And if those features are there then it is also tempting to make it more universal instead of the GCC flavor of Code::Blocks.  By supporting all kind of compiler tools the IDE will become a multi target solution.

So the rewriting of Code::Blocks started and the changes needed were so significant that they could only be realized in a forked source base. Once rewriting a lot of code, in all kind of places, Em::Blocks now really supports multiple targets within one project with assembler highlighting for the target in scope.  There are dedicated  options for assembler and linker tools and the project manager is fully optimized to embedded software design.

By forking Code::Blocks there is one big advantage, both IDE's can by used side-by-side without conflicting errors.


But his license is not correct:  http://www.emblocks.org/web/licensing-main
Quote
Application GPLV3    SVN     
SDK    LGPLV3    SVN
Our SDK is not LGPLV3, it is GPLv3, but as exception rule to allow closed source plugin to link to it.
If some piece of memory should be reused, turn them to variables (or const variables).
If some piece of operations should be reused, turn them to functions.
If they happened together, then turn them to classes.

Offline scarphin

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2014, 04:08:08 am »
Instead of all those options like e.g. a resource compiler or dynamic library builds, we need options for assembler tools and static library buildings.
I too think assembler tools are important for the embedded developer. It would be really nice if cb inherited assembler features from em::blocks. ;)

Offline stahta01

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5969
    • My Best Post
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2014, 05:29:06 am »
Instead of all those options like e.g. a resource compiler or dynamic library builds, we need options for assembler tools and static library buildings.
I too think assembler tools are important for the embedded developer. It would be really nice if cb inherited assembler features from em::blocks. ;)


I just spent the last 4 hours trying to build em::blocks; no success.

I am thinking that he/she created a custom wxWidgets library or a lot of source code is not in the SVN needed to build it.
(I am leaning towards both things being true.)

I never found the source code for the assembler features, or even the compiler/debugger code.

Tim S.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 05:34:34 am by stahta01 »
C Programmer working to learn more about C++ and Git.
On Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 10 32 bit.
On Debian Testing, compiling CB Trunk against wxWidgets 3.0.2.
--
When in doubt, read the CB WiKi FAQ. http://wiki.codeblocks.org

Offline scarphin

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2014, 06:54:38 am »
I am thinking that he/she created a custom wxWidgets library or a lot of source code is not in the SVN needed to build it.
(I am leaning towards both things being true.)
Yes, he says he used customized stuff and started with a legacy cb version. I couldn't locate the source though.

Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10356
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2014, 09:09:57 am »
I just spent the last 4 hours trying to build em::blocks; no success.
You won't be able. Lots of his code is missing as far as I can see. Any of his users must complain to him because he doesn't follow the LGPL3/GPL3 (using C::B as a base means his WHOLE app is LGPL3/GPL3 too)

Instead of all those options like e.g. a resource compiler or dynamic library builds, we need options for assembler tools and static library buildings.
I too think assembler tools are important for the embedded developer. It would be really nice if cb inherited assembler features from em::blocks. ;)
scarphin: Almost no one here is an embedded dev, so we don't know what mean assembler features. What is missing from C::B? Please start a topic in the embedded subsection.


<debugger plugin maintainer>
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline ollydbg

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4982
  • OpenCV and Robotics
    • Chinese OpenCV forum moderator
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2014, 09:25:50 am »
I am thinking that he/she created a custom wxWidgets library or a lot of source code is not in the SVN needed to build it.
(I am leaning towards both things being true.)
Yes, he says he used customized stuff and started with a legacy cb version. I couldn't locate the source though.

So, it is violation of GPL, I think.
If some piece of memory should be reused, turn them to variables (or const variables).
If some piece of operations should be reused, turn them to functions.
If they happened together, then turn them to classes.

Offline scarphin

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2014, 11:35:06 am »
scarphin: Almost no one here is an embedded dev, so we don't know what mean assembler features. What is missing from C::B? Please start a topic in the embedded subsection.
Well, I didn't use emblocks but from my embedded experience with cb, emblocks claims to have some good features which I can summarize below:
1- Assembler options (a tab dedicated to assembler options next to compiler and linker) to pass assembler specific options directly to assembler (i.e as).
2- Native assembler support to edit (syntax highlighting would be nice) and assemble the assembly files (.s, .S, .asm whatever) with designated options from feature 1 maybe by intervening between the compiler and linker and then let the linker link them all. As far as I know gcc compiles c/c++ files into assembly first then lets the assembler do its job so this feature doesn't look much unnatural at all. ;)

Taking into consideration that 10 of the 28 default compilers cb supports are embedded compilers, I think these 2 features alone will increase cb's usability beyond extend for embedded developers.

That summarizes my point. I'll start a topic in the embedded forum if still needed? Although more relevant to embedded world, I fail to see why assembler should be considered to be used only by embedded developers though. ;)

Offline stahta01

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5969
    • My Best Post
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2014, 01:38:56 pm »
I am thinking that he/she created a custom wxWidgets library or a lot of source code is not in the SVN needed to build it.
(I am leaning towards both things being true.)
Yes, he says he used customized stuff and started with a legacy cb version. I couldn't locate the source though.

So, it is violation of GPL, I think.

Not really, the way I read it; it is a violation in spirit of open source. I have no idea if its a legal violation of GPL.

If he replaced the Compiler and Debugger with his own version, I think it would NOT be a GPL violation.
(But, I am guessing on what he did.) Appears to have replaced Compiler and Debugger.
Going to have to install and run Em::Blocks.

What is in Em::Blocks Compiler help.
Description
Code: [Select]
This plugin is an interface to various embedded compilers:

PIC30 Microchip compiler
PIC32 Microchip compiler

License
Code: [Select]
Copyrighted(c) Em::Blocks

Compiler's manifest.xml
Code: [Select]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<EmBlocks_plugin_manifest_file>
    <SdkVersion major="1" minor="0" release="0" />
    <Plugin name="Compiler">
        <Value title="Compiler" />
        <Value version="0.1" />
        <Value description="This plugin is an interface to various embedded compilers:

PIC30 Microchip compiler
PIC32 Microchip compiler" />
        <Value author="Gerard Zagema" />
        <Value authorEmail="info@emblocks.org" />
        <Value authorWebsite="http://www.emblocks.org" />
        <Value thanksTo="" />
        <Value license="Copyrighted(c) Em::Blocks" />
    </Plugin>
</EmBlocks_plugin_manifest_file>

Edit: I believe EmBlocks SVN r4 matches Code::Blocks SVN 7456 the best. I figured this out in hopes that it helps to build EmBlocks.
Decided, I would have to fork EmBlocks to get it to build, run, and work because too much code is missing.

Tim S.
 
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 02:15:53 pm by stahta01 »
C Programmer working to learn more about C++ and Git.
On Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 10 32 bit.
On Debian Testing, compiling CB Trunk against wxWidgets 3.0.2.
--
When in doubt, read the CB WiKi FAQ. http://wiki.codeblocks.org

Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10356
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2014, 09:01:28 pm »
I'll start a topic in the embedded forum if still needed?
Start a topic please. This one contains too many off-topic posts already.

Not really, the way I read it; it is a violation in spirit of open source. I have no idea if its a legal violation of GPL.
For sure it is a violation. If it wasn't everybody could take some files from a GPL project and make his own non-free project.
<debugger plugin maintainer>
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline stahta01

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5969
    • My Best Post
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2014, 09:21:43 pm »
I'll start a topic in the embedded forum if still needed?
Start a topic please. This one contains too many off-topic posts already.

Not really, the way I read it; it is a violation in spirit of open source. I have no idea if its a legal violation of GPL.
For sure it is a violation. If it wasn't everybody could take some files from a GPL project and make his own non-free project.

How can you be positive that took the Compiler, Debugger, and Scripted Wizard Plugins from Code::Blocks?
Instead of just writing there own from scratch?
This is a problem with open source; you really need to prove they used the GPL code in there final product.
I know I am NOT good enough with a disassembler to prove it either true or false.
Be-careful, because, you are awful close to committing slander saying they did violate the GPL.

Tim S.

C Programmer working to learn more about C++ and Git.
On Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 10 32 bit.
On Debian Testing, compiling CB Trunk against wxWidgets 3.0.2.
--
When in doubt, read the CB WiKi FAQ. http://wiki.codeblocks.org

Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10356
Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2014, 09:33:48 pm »
Be-careful, because, you are awful close to committing slander saying they did violate the GPL.
OK, I won't talk more about it...

@admins: Can you clean this topic... probably splitting it in too or three topics?
<debugger plugin maintainer>
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline MortenMacFly

  • Administrator
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 9425
Re: Em::Blocks license violation
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2014, 07:24:28 am »
@admins: Can you clean this topic... probably splitting it in too or three topics?
Done.
Compiler logging: Settings->Compiler & Debugger->tab "Other"->Compiler logging="Full command line"
C::B Manual: http://www.codeblocks.org/docs/main_codeblocks_en.html
C::B FAQ: http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline stahta01

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5969
    • My Best Post
Re: Em::Blocks has forked into EmBlitz
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2017, 06:12:22 am »
CB Modified sources are likely located here now https://www.embitz.org/licenses/
They forked their own IDE of EmBlocks into EmBlitz.

Tim S.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 02:10:14 am by stahta01 »
C Programmer working to learn more about C++ and Git.
On Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 10 32 bit.
On Debian Testing, compiling CB Trunk against wxWidgets 3.0.2.
--
When in doubt, read the CB WiKi FAQ. http://wiki.codeblocks.org