1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is not |
4 |
>> entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed |
5 |
>> ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be distributable at all. |
6 |
|
7 |
> Honestly, I think the GPL linking argument is a difficult one at best, |
8 |
> but setting that aside I think it is even harder to consider calling a |
9 |
> function in an interpreted language "linking." Is it a violation of |
10 |
> the GPL to execute a GPL binary from a bash script that is |
11 |
> GPL-incompatible? Heck, is it a violation of the other license for |
12 |
> the GPL bash interpreter to read and execute the non-GPL lines in the |
13 |
> script? |
14 |
|
15 |
Generally, the user can execute any combination of such functions on |
16 |
his system, without violating their licenses. The question is if a |
17 |
combined work containing parts of the ebuild and of the eclass can be |
18 |
distributed. |
19 |
|
20 |
Now a Gentoo binary package contains an xpak part, which in turn |
21 |
contains a file named environment.bz2 where you will find functions |
22 |
originating both from the ebuild and from its inherited eclasses. |
23 |
Certainly the xpak is a derived work of ebuild _and_ eclasses, so for |
24 |
distributing the binpkg both CDDL (to come back to the original |
25 |
example) and GPL-2 would have to be honoured. Which is not possible |
26 |
because these two licenses are incompatible. |
27 |
|
28 |
Ulrich |