Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll

Quality Quorum
2001-05-07T13:42:00Z

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