From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Peter Reilley" To: "GDB Discussion" Subject: Re: Where is GDB going Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:11:00 -0000 Message-id: <007c01c09f99$636f5ff0$05d145cc@ppro> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00348.html I think that there are some good points here. -----Original Message----- From: Steven Johnson To: Quality Quorum Cc: GDB Discussion Date: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:48 PM Subject: Re: Where is GDB going >Quality Quorum wrote: >> >> >> However, I had a short but unpleasant private discussion with RMS about >> GPL 3.0 from which I concluded (1) that it may preclude proprietary >> software debugging with future versions of GDB by closing protocol linking >> loophole in GPL 2.0, > >Im guessing that you mean linking to a GPL Program, that is necessary >for your program to work, using a communication protocol (say, on top >of TCP/IP) instead of binary linking (say, using a loadable/linked >library) would imply that the connecting program needs to be GPL? > >This does not make sense, and given the history of the FSF and the GPL >where they created free alternatives to commonly available Unix >Utilities (some of which could inter-communicate using comms protocols) >is also paradoxical. If this was the case then if Samba used GPL3.0 >then you would not be able to share files with MS Windows unless MS >Windows was GPL!! Bye Bye Samba :( I Must have misunderstood what you >mean here, could you explain what this loophole is? > >> (2) that it will be for sure impossible (and it is >> may be illegal right now) to link gdb with proprietary software driving >> various hardware probes. >I Agree with this. There are way too many vendors making Windows DLL's >for their proprietary debug Hardware, and cluttering GDB with Hooks to >those DLL's. This is (in my opinion) a clear brach of the GPL (in >spirit if not in word). These vendors are riding off the back of the >work done by and for the FSF without contributing anything back. And in >some cases these vendors are obstructionist in even allowing people to >write properly GPL'd alternatives to their Closed Windows DLL. I don't >think it should be allowed, or supported by the GDB community and Any >patches to GDB that do this trick should be rejected out of hand. See >ser-ocd.c and v850ice.c (in alphabetical order) for examples of this in >the current GDB source. These vendors should either open up their >direct interfaces to their debuggers or they should not expect a free >debugger in GDB. This is a classic "Free as in Beer" not "Free as in >Freedom" situation. There are also other Vendor specific versions of >GDB with similar closed interfaces. There really is no need for including interfaces to targets that do not have GPL'ed monitors in the gdb standard source tree. They are of no use unless you have bought the hardware. On the other hand if we eliminate all such interfaces they there may be only a few interfaces left, which would decrease the value of gdb for everyone. If you are suggesting that gdb cannot be used with these proprietary devices at all then gdb fails in one of the GNU ideals, that is to provide free tools that replace commercial products. This is a fine line to draw. Is communicating to a proprietary monitor OK if it is by ASYNC or TCP/IP but not if it is by way of a library? This is a subject that it is easy to get religious about. Unfortunately, at the end of such wars most people are dead. If we can accommodate the feelings and needs of everyone in this community then we will make progress together. I say, strip out the proprietary interface code and allow the manufacturers to provide their own GPL'ed patched that satisfy their needs. That should keep most people happy. Pete