From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 596 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2002 20:02:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rda-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: rda-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 545 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 20:02:53 -0000 To: drow@mvista.com Cc: rda@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list References: <5.0.2.1.2.20021127095625.02489ac0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <3DE4E23E.5000104@redhat.com> <20021201212149.GC12876@nevyn.them.org> <3DEA91A9.6010009@redhat.com> <20021201231925.GA16409@nevyn.them.org> From: cgd@netbsd.org (Chris G. Demetriou) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: drow@mvista.com's message of "Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:19:18 +0000 (UTC)" Message-ID: <87smxgi3ys.fsf@homeworld.netbsd.org> X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 At Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:19:21 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Jacobowitz" wrote: > There is no benefit to the community in having a publicly developed RDA > that I can see. I got all excited about RDA when i saw the announcement, because i was hoping that it wasn't GPL'd. As it is, it's GPL'd but Copyright Red Hat. *sigh* It seems to me that this means that it pretty much equivalent to gdbserver (modulo implementation or feature differences) **EXCEPT**: * RH can use it however they wish w/o distributing source, and * RH can sell licenses to third parties, to allow them to use it under whatever terms they're willing to pay for. I think a non-GPL'd (i.e., "actually-free software" 8-) gdbserver/RDA-like thing would be of great benefit to the community. However, like you said, i think that the existing RDA is of benefit only to RedHat. Potential users who want to develop it or develop using it should be aware of that. cgd -- Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.