Where is GDB going

[Steven Johnson]

Quality Quorum wrote:
> 
[SNIP]
> 
> > Anyway, discussion about the morality of the GPL are not appropriate
> > to this mailing list.  Concrete questions about the licensing
> > implications of using Gdb remote stubs, probably ok, I guess.
> 
> It was you idea to discuss this matter under this angle. I had
> a very simple question I would like to be either firmly confirmed or
> firmly denied. If I have i386-stub.c (which is public domain) linked with
> my evil-proprietary-system then it will be breach of GPL 3.0 to debug
> my evil-proprietary-system with GDB using GDB remote protocol.
> 
My take is that as long as you do not ship your final product with
i386-stub.c in use, then there is no GPL violation.  As far as I
understand from my reading of the GPL the only requirement is that you
distibute (or have available on request) source to GPL programs and
programs that incorporate GPL Licenced code.  If i386-stub.c is only
used for development and never with the intent of giving your program
features once released then its use would not constitute a breach of the
GPL in Law or in Spirit.

As far as discussing this on the GDB list, I think it is appropriate and
Necessary.  I agree it should not become a philosophical debate.  We
still have two fairly major questions that need answering:

1.  Does using the RSP require the program using it be a GPL Program? 
   My Take: Id be surprised if this was so. (unless you used a GPL Stub
and distributed your program with it included).
2.  Does linking GDB to Closed Source proprietary libraries constitute a
GPL Violation.
   My Take: Yes it does.

Of these I think question 2 is the most important and needs to be put to
bed before V5.1 of GDB is released.  If they turn out to be GPL
Violations then something should be done to rectify them by their
contributors.  

Whatever the final answer is to Question 2, it needs to be documented in
lay terms for future contributors, so that the rules (and line in the
sand) are clear.

Steven Johnson