5 ms·

Is there any other implementation of the same API, but not GPLv3? I'm thinking from LLVM or similar?

by xxpor 6y ago

ComputerGuru 6y ago
I’m a huge proponent of MIT/BSD but I wouldn’t blink twice at deploying this. The code running on your end doesn’t need to be GPL to communicate with a GPL’d server over the network.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I agree. Explaining that to lawyers is a bit tougher.
  - fnord123 6y ago
    In the early 2000s many lawyers were conservative about these things. These days many lawyers working with technology licensing in businesses are very much up to date. Don't be afraid to keep open lines of communication.
  - pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
    If the lawyers need this to be explained to them, they're not very good at their job.
blendergeek 6y ago
Are you hoping to modify it and refuse to contribute your changes back to the community? If not, the GPL will not affect you. If so, does that not feel like mooching off the community?
- fredsanford 6y ago
  Aren't you assuming the worst here? Why so strident? Maybe his/her employer does not allow gpl software...
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    > Maybe his/her employer does not allow gpl software... Then they aren't using GCC (or Linux) in the first place.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    Then replace "you" with "your employer". The point still applies.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I don't personally care it's GPLv3. I know given the way I'd use it there's no actual risk, or if I did modify it there'd be no reason not to contribute back. I do care about getting fired for violating company policy. GPLv2 can be approved fairly easily. GPLv3 is a much tougher sell. For example, GCC is fine because there's really no alternative (or there wasn't before clang had full compatibility).
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Why would GPL 2 vs 3 matter? Is the company doing hardware appliances or something?
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Its probably the patent grant that has their lawyers squeamish.
    - usr1106 6y ago
      Many corporations accept using GPLv2 code to some extent, while GPLv3 is just a red flag. Tivoization is one problem. If you have GPLv3 in your (embedded) product, you must provide tools to the customer to reflash it. Many corporations don't want that, and in cases where type appovals are required it might be illegal. Think of a car owner reprogramming the engine control unit or the brakes. That's probably all not very applicable to gdb, but corporate policies might not allow such a nuanced perspective.
      - bonzini 6y ago
        The ECU would definitely constitute mere aggregation with respect to e.g. the in-car entertainment system. Also, reprogramming the ECU is already possible, and it's also not illegal to do it. It may very well void your warranty and it might be illegal to use the car on public roads after having reprogrammed the ECU, but neither of those two things are incompatible with the GPL.
        a1369209993 6y ago
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  I won't matter even if modifications are made so long is it isn't distributed outside the company. Corporate personhood means your coworkers are all part of a single legal entity. GPL cannot apply.
CalChris 6y ago
This is in the works for LLDB. https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750 https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750 The feature itself is multi-platform and is not original to GDB. https://sourceware.org/elfutils/Debuginfod.html https://sourceware.org/elfutils/Debuginfod.html

Is there any other implementation of the same API, but not GPLv3? I'm thinking from LLVM or similar?

by xxpor 6y ago

Is there any other implementation of the same API, but not GPLv3? I'm thinking from LLVM or similar?

I’m a huge proponent of MIT/BSD but I wouldn’t blink twice at deploying this. The code running on your end doesn’t need to be GPL to communicate with a GPL’d server over the network.

xxpor 6y ago
I agree. Explaining that to lawyers is a bit tougher.
- fnord123 6y ago
  In the early 2000s many lawyers were conservative about these things. These days many lawyers working with technology licensing in businesses are very much up to date. Don't be afraid to keep open lines of communication.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  If the lawyers need this to be explained to them, they're not very good at their job.

blendergeek 6y ago

Are you hoping to modify it and refuse to contribute your changes back to the community? If not, the GPL will not affect you. If so, does that not feel like mooching off the community?

fredsanford 6y ago
Aren't you assuming the worst here? Why so strident? Maybe his/her employer does not allow gpl software...
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  > Maybe his/her employer does not allow gpl software... Then they aren't using GCC (or Linux) in the first place.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  Then replace "you" with "your employer". The point still applies.
xxpor 6y ago
I don't personally care it's GPLv3. I know given the way I'd use it there's no actual risk, or if I did modify it there'd be no reason not to contribute back. I do care about getting fired for violating company policy. GPLv2 can be approved fairly easily. GPLv3 is a much tougher sell. For example, GCC is fine because there's really no alternative (or there wasn't before clang had full compatibility).
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Why would GPL 2 vs 3 matter? Is the company doing hardware appliances or something?
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Its probably the patent grant that has their lawyers squeamish.
  - usr1106 6y ago
    Many corporations accept using GPLv2 code to some extent, while GPLv3 is just a red flag. Tivoization is one problem. If you have GPLv3 in your (embedded) product, you must provide tools to the customer to reflash it. Many corporations don't want that, and in cases where type appovals are required it might be illegal. Think of a car owner reprogramming the engine control unit or the brakes. That's probably all not very applicable to gdb, but corporate policies might not allow such a nuanced perspective.
    - bonzini 6y ago
      The ECU would definitely constitute mere aggregation with respect to e.g. the in-car entertainment system. Also, reprogramming the ECU is already possible, and it's also not illegal to do it. It may very well void your warranty and it might be illegal to use the car on public roads after having reprogrammed the ECU, but neither of those two things are incompatible with the GPL.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
I won't matter even if modifications are made so long is it isn't distributed outside the company. Corporate personhood means your coworkers are all part of a single legal entity. GPL cannot apply.

CalChris 6y ago

This is in the works for LLDB. https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750 https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750 The feature itself is multi-platform and is not original to GDB. https://sourceware.org/elfutils/Debuginfod.html https://sourceware.org/elfutils/Debuginfod.html