Re: gpl, gdb and wigglers.dll

[DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>]

Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> writes:
> I'm hoping this is one of the things that GPL v3 will clarify,
> because v2 doesn't address the question of add-on hardware and its
> associated drivers.

I think that's one of the big things in v3.  Gimp plug-ins are another
example of that which has drawn attention to the GPL.

> If I bought a special "wiggler PC" that had a wiggler soldered onto
> the motherboard, and it only had a Windows driver that was included
> with the preinstalled system, then how is a GDB using that driver
> different from a cygwin GDB using any of the other drivers that are
> in the system?

We have enough gray areas without having to go looking for them :-)

If Windows came with a wiggler driver, the gpl would probably treat it
as part of the OS.  But windows doesn't come with a wiggler driver.
It's not a matter of what you and I think is right, it's a matter of
how a court would interpret the GPL as written (which is why the GPL
is occasionally updated).  Of course, there's no telling how some
courts will decide things these days.

The whole "part of the os" exception in the gpl is a compromise
between the idealistic goals of the FSF and the hard facts of reality.
They had to draw the line somewhere, and back then "part of the os"
was a good place to draw it.  Now things are more complicated, and
they're revisiting the issue.  It will be interesting to see how it
turns out.