* Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins
@ 2012-07-10 13:33 Joachim Protze
2012-07-10 14:19 ` Stan Shebs
2012-07-11 21:34 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joachim Protze @ 2012-07-10 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]
Hi,
while the discussion in the last session of the GNU cauldron, the
question raised, whether there is a licencing policy for Python plugins,
as there is a quite strict policy for gcc plugins. As no one in the
audience had an opinion to this question, I think the gdb developers
attended the other track. Searching the wiki, the mailinglist and the
web I did not find any hints for a policy. Is there any policy or
recommendation?
- Joachim
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5319 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins
2012-07-10 13:33 Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins Joachim Protze
@ 2012-07-10 14:19 ` Stan Shebs
2012-07-11 12:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2012-07-11 21:34 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stan Shebs @ 2012-07-10 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
On 7/10/12 3:33 PM, Joachim Protze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while the discussion in the last session of the GNU cauldron, the
> question raised, whether there is a licencing policy for Python plugins,
> as there is a quite strict policy for gcc plugins. As no one in the
> audience had an opinion to this question, I think the gdb developers
> attended the other track. Searching the wiki, the mailinglist and the
> web I did not find any hints for a policy. Is there any policy or
> recommendation?
>
Sorry, some of us were off in a different room and didn't notice the time!
In any case, I don't recall much thought about a GDB plugin licensing
policy, but I imagine there would have to be a pretty strong rationale
for it to differ from the GCC policy.
Stan Shebs
stan@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins
2012-07-10 14:19 ` Stan Shebs
@ 2012-07-11 12:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2012-07-11 17:43 ` John Gilmore
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2012-07-11 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stan Shebs; +Cc: gdb
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 7/10/12 3:33 PM, Joachim Protze wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> while the discussion in the last session of the GNU cauldron, the
>> question raised, whether there is a licencing policy for Python plugins,
>> as there is a quite strict policy for gcc plugins. As no one in the
>> audience had an opinion to this question, I think the gdb developers
>> attended the other track. Searching the wiki, the mailinglist and the
>> web I did not find any hints for a policy. Is there any policy or
>> recommendation?
>>
>
> Sorry, some of us were off in a different room and didn't notice the time!
>
> In any case, I don't recall much thought about a GDB plugin licensing
> policy, but I imagine there would have to be a pretty strong rationale for
> it to differ from the GCC policy.
Well, the GCC policy is very compiler-specific and frankly ugly; it is
designed to prevent use of the GPL'd frontend with a non-GPL backend
inserted as a "plugin", or third-party non-GPL optimizers. It does
this by means of clauses in the libgcc and other runtime licenses,
which can only be used as GPL if a non-GPL plugin was used to produce
the compiler output, preventing the compilation of proprietary
software. (That's how I remember it anyway - check primary sources).
I'd rather see something looser for GDB, where plugins are more
consumers than contributors, but I haven't thought about it that much.
>
> Stan Shebs
> stan@codesourcery.com
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins
2012-07-11 12:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2012-07-11 17:43 ` John Gilmore
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Gilmore @ 2012-07-11 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: Stan Shebs, gdb
Since we aren't sure, howabout publishing something that says, "If
your plugin is public domain or licensed under GPLv3+, it's compatible
with GDB's licensing. If you want to do something different, come
talk with us and we'll work something out." That way we can make a
decision in a context that's informed by an actual plugin - while
enabling anybody who doesn't mind PD or GPL.
John
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins
2012-07-10 13:33 Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins Joachim Protze
2012-07-10 14:19 ` Stan Shebs
@ 2012-07-11 21:34 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2012-07-11 21:52 ` Doug Evans
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Frank Ch. Eigler @ 2012-07-11 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joachim Protze; +Cc: gdb
Joachim Protze <joachim.protze@tu-dresden.de> writes:
> [...] while the discussion in the last session of the GNU cauldron,
> the question raised, whether there is a licencing policy for Python
> plugins, [...]
Unless one believes the gdb plugin api is copyrightable in its own
right (and thus license compatibility comes up), perhaps discussion
should be limited to how the gdb project would accept said plugins as
a contribution.
- FChE
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins
2012-07-11 21:34 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
@ 2012-07-11 21:52 ` Doug Evans
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Doug Evans @ 2012-07-11 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frank Ch. Eigler; +Cc: Joachim Protze, gdb
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Joachim Protze <joachim.protze@tu-dresden.de> writes:
>
>> [...] while the discussion in the last session of the GNU cauldron,
>> the question raised, whether there is a licencing policy for Python
>> plugins, [...]
>
> Unless one believes the gdb plugin api is copyrightable in its own
> right (and thus license compatibility comes up), perhaps discussion
> should be limited to how the gdb project would accept said plugins as
> a contribution.
Hi.
Yeah, I'm not sure how else to interpret the discussion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-11 21:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-10 13:33 Licencing policy for gdb Python plugins Joachim Protze
2012-07-10 14:19 ` Stan Shebs
2012-07-11 12:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2012-07-11 17:43 ` John Gilmore
2012-07-11 21:34 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2012-07-11 21:52 ` Doug Evans
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).