From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quality Quorum To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:42:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3AF7038A.9080908@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00094.html On Mon, 7 May 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > 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. Can you give a more legalisting answer ? I am asking this question because I am trying to get a long term outlook of what is going to be allowed and what is not going to be allowed in gdb. As far as I understand closest number to match your answe is (4). > Andrew Thanks, Aleksey