| 1 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:17:08 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is |
| 8 |
> > not entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed |
| 9 |
> > ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be distributable at |
| 10 |
> > all. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Honestly, I think the GPL linking argument is a difficult one at best, |
| 13 |
> but setting that aside I think it is even harder to consider calling a |
| 14 |
> function in an interpreted language "linking." Is it a violation of |
| 15 |
> the GPL to execute a GPL binary from a bash script that is |
| 16 |
> GPL-incompatible? Heck, is it a violation of the other license for |
| 17 |
> the GPL bash interpreter to read and execute the non-GPL lines in the |
| 18 |
> script? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The concept is "derived work": If your script cannot work without the |
| 22 |
GPL binary, then it is derived work. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Alexis. |
Archives