1 |
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> If I write a QT gui that forks/exec x264 cli and want to sell it as the |
4 |
> best H264 encoder on the market, then I have to comply with x264 |
5 |
> license since it won't do what I claim once x264 is removed. |
6 |
|
7 |
The QT gui could be distributed under any license you care to, since |
8 |
it doesn't contain anything from x264. It might not actually do |
9 |
anything without the x264 binary, but it can be legally redistributed |
10 |
on its own under your choice of license (if you're the author). |
11 |
|
12 |
Now, if you want to redistribute the x264 binary then of course you |
13 |
need to comply the with the x264 license. |
14 |
|
15 |
Running a program from a script doesn't make your script a derivative |
16 |
work of that program. They each have their own license, and can be |
17 |
independently redistributed. |
18 |
|
19 |
> If I want to sell the same program as a QT gui for x264 cli, then it is |
20 |
> far less clear whether it is derivative work, but I'll certainly have |
21 |
> more difficulties in selling it :) |
22 |
|
23 |
I don't really see how marketing changes something's status as a |
24 |
derivative work. Certainly I'm not aware of any court decision to |
25 |
this effect, or any law. |
26 |
|
27 |
> Back to the subject, a CDDL ebuild is a CDDL script to install a |
28 |
> program. If you can't install the program without the GPL parts (that |
29 |
> are distributed inside the same binpkg iirc), then it is derivative |
30 |
> work. |
31 |
|
32 |
I disagree. We in fact allow GPL ebuilds in the Gentoo repository |
33 |
that install proprietary software which is subject to licenses which |
34 |
are GPL-incompatible. The fact that your script automates running a |
35 |
bunch of proprietary code doesn't change the fact that your script |
36 |
itself is completely free software, governed by its own license. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Rich |