6 ms·

This feels like the kind of scaremongering that was common about open source on general a few decades ago. A script that calls a piece of software is not a der

This feels like the kind of scaremongering that was common about open source on general a few decades ago. A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work. Otherwise, all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. Why would your example be different?

kazinator 6y ago
> A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work If that script relies on that software, it is a derived work. If that script is GPLed, then that software must be GPL-compatible, or else it must be interpreted as falling under the "system library exception". > all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. The tools required to build GCC on a proprietary OS can be regarded as landing under the system exception. It would almost certainly be a GPL violation to add a patch to GCC which causes it to require a third-party proprietary program or script in order to build (something not coming from a target system itself).
- atq2119 6y ago
  You misunderstood the comparison. I was talking about build systems that invoke GCC as part of building another program. This is comparable to a provisioning script.
knorker 6y ago
> A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work. Probably not, but it is "Corresponding source" in the AGPL license. > Otherwise, all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. No, because: 1. AGPL is not GPL. GPL doesn't have the concept of "corresponding source". AGPL does. 2. Build systems were not built for the purpose of building software X, they were built for building any software. In other words, a completely freestanding source code that can ONLY link with the Linux kernel IS in scope for GPL, as derivative work. E.g. see legal status of out-of-tree binary kernel modules. Or another comparison: Your LD_PRELOAD library that overloads write() will work with any software, and therefore is not derivative work. Your LD_PRELOAD that is made only for a GPL tool does in fact link with it, and probably (don't know if there's a court case on this yet) does mean it's GPL. Your script that can only be used to launch an AGPL software thingy IS "corresponding source" and/or (could be both, a court has not tested this) "derivative work". It's certainly not neither, and therefore it falls under AGPL and must be published.

kazinator 6y ago

> A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work If that script relies on that software, it is a derived work. If that script is GPLed, then that software must be GPL-compatible, or else it must be interpreted as falling under the "system library exception". > all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. The tools required to build GCC on a proprietary OS can be regarded as landing under the system exception. It would almost certainly be a GPL violation to add a patch to GCC which causes it to require a third-party proprietary program or script in order to build (something not coming from a target system itself).

atq2119 6y ago
You misunderstood the comparison. I was talking about build systems that invoke GCC as part of building another program. This is comparable to a provisioning script.

knorker 6y ago

> A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work. Probably not, but it is "Corresponding source" in the AGPL license. > Otherwise, all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. No, because: 1. AGPL is not GPL. GPL doesn't have the concept of "corresponding source". AGPL does. 2. Build systems were not built for the purpose of building software X, they were built for building any software. In other words, a completely freestanding source code that can ONLY link with the Linux kernel IS in scope for GPL, as derivative work. E.g. see legal status of out-of-tree binary kernel modules. Or another comparison: Your LD_PRELOAD library that overloads write() will work with any software, and therefore is not derivative work. Your LD_PRELOAD that is made only for a GPL tool does in fact link with it, and probably (don't know if there's a court case on this yet) does mean it's GPL. Your script that can only be used to launch an AGPL software thingy IS "corresponding source" and/or (could be both, a court has not tested this) "derivative work". It's certainly not neither, and therefore it falls under AGPL and must be published.