From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quality Quorum To: Steven Johnson Cc: Stan Shebs , Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 07:03:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3AF80B62.98C2B97B@neurizon.net> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00120.html 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