From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Quality Quorum Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:20:00 -0000 Message-id: <3AF7038A.9080908@cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00093.html > Hi, > > There is a piece of gdb code (I suppose in ser-ocd.c), which loads > and uses proprietary dll. It seems to me that it is this is a violation > of the GPL. So, I am wondering which of the following is true (and why): > > 1. It is not a violation of GPL. > 2. It is not a violation of GPL 2, it will be prohibited in future GPL > versions. > 3. It is a violation of GPL and it will be removed ASAP. > 4. It is a viilation of GPL, however, nothing is going to be done about > it. > 4. It is wigglers-specific exclusion from GPL requirements and it is > going to stay this way. > 6. It is gdb-specific exclusion from GPL requirements and it is going to > stay this way. > 7. None of the above. If someone were to distribute a GDB binary along with wiggler.dll and _not_ make freely available the source to both the wiggler.dll and GDB then there would likely be a GPL violation. Looking at ser-ocd.c, it probably shouldn't be included in the standard *ppc* targets simply because it is a waste of space - it is very windows specific. Anyway, your e-mail eludes to a more important question - should GDB even include the source to code that allows it to use proprietary debug interfaces? I'm guessing, but I suspect that the current pratice has been that such code should be included as it makes GDB accessible to a wider set of users. At the same time, however, it also precluding the possibility of a dll vendor directly benefiting by distributing a GDB binary. Andrew