Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll

["Richard Slaughter" <rslaughter at anatel dot com>]

I just wanted to add my two cents.  Maciaigor claims that their binaries
were generated from version 5.0 of GDB-Insight.   I have tried repeatedly to
rebuild the GDB-insight with wiggler support from these sources and failed.
I received very little support from Maciaigor and finally they admitted that
you can not rebuild the GDB-insight version 5.0 without "tweaking" insight.
The information for making these tweaks to insight is not provided.  It's OK
for GDB to support a well documented DLL that when rebuilding the GDB
sources you have some assurance it will work.
It is a disservice to the GDB community for Macraigor to say they have
GDB-Insight support when it is impossible to rebuild the executable.
Thanks
just blowing off steam...
wasted to much time on wiggler....
Richard Slaughter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Shebs" <shebs@apple.com>
To: "Andrew Cagney" <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: "Quality Quorum" <qqi@world.std.com>; <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll


> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> > [...] 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.
>
> I don't believe this practice violates the letter of the GPL, but
> it is in a gray area.  The GPL says source code need not "include
> anything that is normally distributed with [...] the operating
> system".  The wiggler dll is basically a driver for an addon piece
> of hardware, so one could argue that it is a normal component of the
> operating system for a PC+wiggler combination.  In that respect it
> would be no different from having, say, an XFree86 that includes a
> special hack to use a Windows-binary-only 3D card driver, even when
> running on GNU/Linux.
>
> However, in retrospect, I made a mistake in deciding to include
> ser-ocd.c.  The problem is that with an unspecified interface
> between PC and wiggler, and with the wiggler dll only available in
> binary form for certain platforms (correct me if I'm wrong here),
> you have the situation that the GPL was supposed to prevent, namely
> that you can't fix a problem in the driver, use it with a different
> operating system, etc.  For instance, if I get a Mac with a parallel
> port, I can't use the wiggler I already bought, no matter whether I run
> LinuxPPC or OS X.  Even a minor Linux or Windows upgrade could render
> my wiggler useless.
>
> 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).
>
> Stan


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com