4 ms·
afaik, use of a stand-alone utility like wget, even if GPL-licensed, does not require GPL licensing of any other software that invokes it. I can write a shell
by ams6110 8y ago
afaik, use of a stand-alone utility like wget, even if GPL-licensed, does not require GPL licensing of any other software that invokes it.
I can write a shell script that invokes wget, but that doesn't mean my shell script is subject to GPL.
I can use wget on a Windows machine, it doesn't mean Microsoft has to give me the Windows source code.
- brianwawok 8y agoLawyers at many BigCos have a blanket ban on touching GPL. They don't want a 10 billion dollar lawsuit to come down to the judge's interpretation of a license. Usually licenses are on a flat good or bad list.
- cyphar 8y agowget is GPLv3 licensed which requires you to give users all of the information (such as firmware keys or a way of replacing the firmware keys) to replace wget. Practically speaking this would require providing access to replace the entire system (though as you say the GPL wouldn't apply to separate programs as that is generally considered to not be a derivative work from a copyright perspective). Interestingly GPLv2 has similar but lighter requirements -- you have to provide instructions ("scripts") on how to build and install the software. But obviously many people believe that this was not strong enough to deal with firmware-locked systems and thus GPLv3 was born.