Re: libremote status?

Re: libremote status?

[Fred Viles]

Dang, bitten by the listserver (and my inattention) again.  Sorry for 
the PM, Chris.

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Fred Viles <fv@epitools.com>
To:             	Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
Subject:        	Re: libremote status?
Date sent:      	Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:17:07 -0700

On 9 Oct 2002 at 15:03, Christopher Faylor wrote about
    "Re: libremote status?":

| On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:42:35PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
| >On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:39:53AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
| >I assume that, given the name change, there is no plan for RDA to be
| >contributed to the FSF?  And that, as such, there can be no effort to
| >combine all this beautiful server architecture with the fact that we
| >have a working gdbserver implementation, and active development on it?
| 
| We will not be releasing this to the FSF, no.  We still need to hold
| the copyright for various reasons.

OTOH, according to the comment blocks at the start of every file you 
are releasing it under the GPL.  Doesn't that mean that it can be 
incorporated into other GPL'ed projects pretty much without 
additional restriction?  I obviously son't understand the issues 
here...

- Fred

------- End of forwarded message -------

Re: libremote status?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:18:56PM -0700, Fred Viles wrote:
> Dang, bitten by the listserver (and my inattention) again.  Sorry for 
> the PM, Chris.
> 
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> From:           	Fred Viles <fv@epitools.com>
> To:             	Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
> Subject:        	Re: libremote status?
> Date sent:      	Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:17:07 -0700
> 
> On 9 Oct 2002 at 15:03, Christopher Faylor wrote about
>     "Re: libremote status?":
> 
> | On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:42:35PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> | >On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:39:53AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> | >I assume that, given the name change, there is no plan for RDA to be
> | >contributed to the FSF?  And that, as such, there can be no effort to
> | >combine all this beautiful server architecture with the fact that we
> | >have a working gdbserver implementation, and active development on it?
> | 
> | We will not be releasing this to the FSF, no.  We still need to hold
> | the copyright for various reasons.
> 
> OTOH, according to the comment blocks at the start of every file you 
> are releasing it under the GPL.  Doesn't that mean that it can be 
> incorporated into other GPL'ed projects pretty much without 
> additional restriction?  I obviously son't understand the issues 
> here...

In general, yes; GNU projects, no.  Remember the oft-mentioned
copyright assignment forms?  It's FSF policy (usually) that the FSF
hold copyright on the entire source base of a GNU project like GDB.

It's a reasonable policy; it gives the FSF close control over licensing
issues and centralizes copyright defense if it should become necessary. 
I believe those are the reasons.

[And I want to apologize again to Chris and others for my tone in that
quote; I do really appreciate the work they've done to get this project
released to the community.]


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: libremote status?

[Andrew Cagney]

>> OTOH, according to the comment blocks at the start of every file you 
>> are releasing it under the GPL.  Doesn't that mean that it can be 
>> incorporated into other GPL'ed projects pretty much without 
>> additional restriction?  I obviously son't understand the issues 
>> here...
> 
> 
> In general, yes; GNU projects, no.  Remember the oft-mentioned
> copyright assignment forms?  It's FSF policy (usually) that the FSF
> hold copyright on the entire source base of a GNU project like GDB.

It's also sufficiently important for me to spend months (ongoing) slowly 
getting the (C) of the sim/ directory transfered to the FSF.

> It's a reasonable policy; it gives the FSF close control over licensing
> issues and centralizes copyright defense if it should become necessary. 
> I believe those are the reasons.
> 
> [And I want to apologize again to Chris and others for my tone in that
> quote; I do really appreciate the work they've done to get this project
> released to the community.]

Look on the bright side.  At least you can now see what the devil I'm 
rambling on about when I say how GDB should be layered and modula and 
the target vector should be stackable.  FSF (C) or not, that code 
couldn't be pulled into GDB proper (it would be equivalent to a HP merge 
.... :-( ), however, the experience gained can certainly be applied to GDB.

Andrew

libremote status?

[Fred Viles]

In the archives I found the following comment by Eric Bachalo in the 
thread "libremote activation" from November 2000:

| First, apologies for not getting libremote sources out to the public
| yet.  We fully plan to release all libremote sources to the public in
| the near future.  The only reason we haven't to date is a lack of
| available resources to do it properly.
| 
| Libremote is our effort to make a standard framework under a single
| set of sources for handling GDB remote protocol on the target side. 
| We plan on releasing the code under a BSD like license.  This will
| eliminate worries of linking this code with third party proprietary
| libraries.
| 
| Eric Bachalo
| Director of Engineering
| Red Hat, Inc.

libremote doesn't appear to be publicly released yet, but in the "OCD 
Support" thread last January Peter Reilley says Macraigor will be 
using it in the future.

Other than these threads, I find very little mention of libremote at 
all.  So my question is, what is the status of the libremote project?

TIA...

- Fred Viles <mailto:fv@epitools.com>

Re: libremote status?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 06:32:25PM -0700, Fred Viles wrote:
>In the archives I found the following comment by Eric Bachalo in the 
>thread "libremote activation" from November 2000:
>
>| First, apologies for not getting libremote sources out to the public
>| yet.  We fully plan to release all libremote sources to the public in
>| the near future.  The only reason we haven't to date is a lack of
>| available resources to do it properly.
>| 
>| Libremote is our effort to make a standard framework under a single
>| set of sources for handling GDB remote protocol on the target side. 
>| We plan on releasing the code under a BSD like license.  This will
>| eliminate worries of linking this code with third party proprietary
>| libraries.
>| 
>| Eric Bachalo
>| Director of Engineering
>| Red Hat, Inc.
>
>libremote doesn't appear to be publicly released yet, but in the "OCD 
>Support" thread last January Peter Reilley says Macraigor will be 
>using it in the future.
>
>Other than these threads, I find very little mention of libremote at 
>all.  So my question is, what is the status of the libremote project?

Coincidentally enough, it should be released within the next month.
We've been slowly clearing up various minor issues, like the actual
released name of the product and we've been cleaning up some minor
interface odds and ends.  You can blame me for this, since I wanted to
make sure that there were no outstanding issues before it was released.
(and saying this has certainly jinxed things now)

Sorry for the delay.  It will be coming soon to a repository near you.

Christopher Faylor
Engineering Manager
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: libremote status?

[Fred Viles]

On 13 Jul 2002 at 13:05, Christopher Faylor wrote about
    "Re: libremote status?":

|...
| Sorry for the delay.  It will be coming soon to a repository near you.

That's good news, thanks.  I'll keep an eye peeled.  Are you still 
intending to release it under a BSD-like license, or GPL?

| Christopher Faylor
| Engineering Manager
| Red Hat, Inc.

- Fred Viles <mailto:fv@epitools.com>

Re: libremote status?

[Fred Viles]

The middle of August having passed us by, time for a status update 
please?

I see Macraigor has libremote binaries (no source) available for 
download, how did they get it?

On 13 Jul 2002 at 13:05, Christopher Faylor wrote about
    "Re: libremote status?":

| On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 06:32:25PM -0700, Fred Viles wrote:
|...
| >Other than these threads, I find very little mention of libremote at 
| >all.  So my question is, what is the status of the libremote project?
| 
| Coincidentally enough, it should be released within the next month.
|
| We've been slowly clearing up various minor issues, like the actual
| released name of the product and we've been cleaning up some minor
| interface odds and ends.  You can blame me for this, since I wanted to
| make sure that there were no outstanding issues before it was released.
| (and saying this has certainly jinxed things now)
| 
| Sorry for the delay.  It will be coming soon to a repository near you.
| 
| Christopher Faylor
| Engineering Manager
| Red Hat, Inc.

- Fred

Re: libremote status?

[Kevin Buettner]

On Oct 8,  8:41pm, Fred Viles wrote:

> The middle of August having passed us by, time for a status update 
> please?

The name of ``libremote'' has been changed to ``rda'' (for Red Hat
Debug Agent).  The sources are available for cvs checkout from
sources.redhat.com via the rda module.  We still need to put up a
project web page, set up a mailing list, and formally announce it.

Kevin

Re: libremote status?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:39:53AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Oct 8,  8:41pm, Fred Viles wrote:
> 
> > The middle of August having passed us by, time for a status update 
> > please?
> 
> The name of ``libremote'' has been changed to ``rda'' (for Red Hat
> Debug Agent).  The sources are available for cvs checkout from
> sources.redhat.com via the rda module.  We still need to put up a
> project web page, set up a mailing list, and formally announce it.

Well.  Didn't even notice it get added to my checkout.  And there it
is, the remote thread debugging package Red Hat implemented years ago
that couldn't be released.

I assume that, given the name change, there is no plan for RDA to be
contributed to the FSF?  And that, as such, there can be no effort to
combine all this beautiful server architecture with the fact that we
have a working gdbserver implementation, and active development on it?

[Apologies if I come out a little bitter-sounding.  I had to do several
months of development based on the non-availability of this code.  And
now, when I'm trying to find an architecture by which I can merge the
gdbserver native support and the gdb native support, this beauty comes
along - and we can't use it.  I understand the realities of the
situation.]

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: libremote status?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:42:35PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:39:53AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
>I assume that, given the name change, there is no plan for RDA to be
>contributed to the FSF?  And that, as such, there can be no effort to
>combine all this beautiful server architecture with the fact that we
>have a working gdbserver implementation, and active development on it?

We will not be releasing this to the FSF, no.  We still need to hold
the copyright for various reasons.

cgf