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 like Em::Blocks licensing web page.It has some text mention Codeblocks: http://www.emblocks.org/web/77-homepage/8-history
http://www.emblocks.org/web/licensing-main (http://www.emblocks.org/web/licensing-main)
Tim S.
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.
Application GPLV3 SVNOur SDK is not LGPLV3, it is GPLv3, but as exception rule to allow closed source plugin to link to it.
SDK LGPLV3 SVN
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. ;)
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 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.Yes, he says he used customized stuff and started with a legacy cb version. I couldn't locate the source though.
(I am leaning towards both things being true.)
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)
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.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. ;)
So, it is violation of GPL, I think.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.Yes, he says he used customized stuff and started with a legacy cb version. I couldn't locate the source though.
(I am leaning towards both things being true.)
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:
So, it is violation of GPL, I think.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.Yes, he says he used customized stuff and started with a legacy cb version. I couldn't locate the source though.
(I am leaning towards both things being true.)
This plugin is an interface to various embedded compilers:
PIC30 Microchip compiler
PIC32 Microchip compiler
Copyrighted(c) Em::Blocks
<?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>
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.
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.
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?Done.