gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll

[Quality Quorum]

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