Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

> 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.

	Andrew