Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll

Quality Quorum
2001-05-08T07:03:00Z

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Steven Johnson wrote:

> Stan Shebs wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >
> > > [...] should GDB
> > > even include the source to code that allows it to use proprietary debug
> > > interfaces?
> [snip]
> >
> > I don't believe this practice violates the letter of the GPL, but
> > it is in a gray area.
> [snip]
> > So as a matter of principle, it would be better to remove ser-ocd.c
> > from the sources and explain why. Perhaps the official deprecation
> > will encourage someone to work up some free source that will work
> > with a wiggler, much as was done for m68k bdm years ago (though never
> > incorporated into GDB, sigh).
> >
>
> I agree with all of this, if a vendor wishes to include proprietary
> interfaces
> to closed source DLL's they can:
> 1. Have patches available on their web site for the interface.
> 2. Build a server program that communicates to GDB using the GDB remote
> serial protocol (and therefore does not require any pathces to GDB)
> 3. Release the communication details of the device so that the DLL can
> be used on windows, but other direct alternatives can be provided for
> other platforms.
>
> This always seemed against the spirit of the GPL to me.

Do you imply that GPL does not worth the paper needed to print it out ?

Again, I am trying to make a long term decision wrt using of GPL'ed code
and I am trying to come to grips what is (going to be) permited and what
not.

>
> BTW. I don't think ser-ocd.c is the only file that does this, I seem to
> remember one other interface as well.
>
> Steven Johnson
>

Thanks,

Aleksey