From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: DJ Delorie To: ibr@gantek.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 08:59:00 -0000 Message-id: <200105091559.LAA00846@greed.delorie.com> References: <87g0ef4roa.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <20010509101645.A3381@kerberos.local.ankara.gantek.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00188.html > I've just re-read GPL v2, and I can't see the point behind the > discussion: as far as I could understand, the presense of an > interface to wigglers.dll in gdb sources does not violate GPL as > long as wigglers.dll is not distributed with gdb (as a "major > component of the operating system on which the executable runs", > article 3) and interface between wigglers.dll and any program using > it is not patented (article 7; this does not seem to be the case). Some points: * The wiggler dll is *not* a "major component of" Windows. I don't see how you could possibly argue that it is. * The GPL is concerned with "works", not files. If you've created a version of gdb that does not function without the wiggler dll, it's *one* work and the GPL applies to the combination of the two as a whole. The gray area is when you build a version of gdb that *can* be used without the wiggler dll, but *may* be used with it *if* it is available. Another gray area is if you distribute only gdb's sources. I don't think the GPL has a problem with that case, even if the sources include an interface to a proprietary API, as long as no gdb binaries that use that interface are involved. IANAL, but it seems to me that you can modify the sources of gdb to use a proprietary API, and distribute those sources, but you can never distribute a binary that uses that API, because you can never satisfy the GPL while doing that. > In short, I don't think the practice of developing interfaces to > proprietary systems violates GPL, and I would even like to encourage > it. Are you a lawyer? Unless you are and know for sure that this is legal, I wouldn't encourage people to do something that might be breaking the law. > Why do you think inability to fix a problem in wigglers.dll is > supposed to be prevented by GPL? In the end, that is the problem > with the dll, not with gdb? Because this is the whole *point* of the GPL. If you are debugging a board and there's a bug in the software, you should be able to fix it. Period. The GPL doesn't care what part of the software the bug is in. > IMHO, GPL is not supposed to encourage the development of, say, > GPLed version of Windows 2000. Of course not, but what does Windows 2000 have nothing to do with this? Windows *is* a major component of the OS, and the GPL makes an exception for that. > Tom: > Why do you think this code is GPL violation and should be removed? Specifically? Because gdb+wiggler is a single "work", and thus the wiggler dll sources must be made available to anyone you distribute a gdb binary to.