> 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 sy

> 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.