This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Distribution of GNU tools with commercial packages


> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:36:08 +0100
> From: Leo Romanoff <romix@geocities.com>

> We have some questions about using and distributing of GNU software.

gnu.misc.discuss is a better place to discuss this than this list,
please, all followups there.

> Our compiler can generate some popular object file formats like
> coff, ELF, etc. and we would like to recommend to our customers the
> using the GNU linker(ld). It will be invoked as en external program
> from our development environment.  QUESTION: Is it possible to
> deliver the GNU linker(ld) in such a software package without making
> free the sources of our compiler and loader?

Yes, I suspect it is possible.  The file COPYING explains what you
must do, what you can do, and what you can't do.  Ask followup
questions relating to this document and the specifics of your case.

> We should integrate the remote procedures for our controller into
> GNU debugger(gdb). Will be this integrating of the remote debugging
> support for our controller considered as the changing of gdb
> sources?

If diff -r original_gdb my_gdb returns a non-zero status, you have
changed the source.  Or put another way, yes.

> Because a communication protocol is very good place for undesirable
> accesses into the embedded systems, it is very important for our
> customers to keep secret the protocol and the sources of the remote
> procedures.

Sorry, you are out of luck.  You must publish the sources to the gdb
side of the protocol under the GPL. These cannot be secret. This
source code can serve as documentation of the protocol.

The far side (in other process that has no GPLed code), where the
protocol is _implemented_ (the implementation of the remote
procedures) can be secret and so on.

> Are there any special regulations for this case?

No (other than what is in COPYING).

> Is it possible not to put these changes of GDB sources under GPL?

These changes to the gdb side, no.  These changes to the far side, yes.


Note, I don't speak for the FSF, nor am I a lawyer.  ;-P

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]