3 ms·
This is a false analogy. It's quite straightforward. Running bash (via exec()/fork()/spawn()/etc) isn't the same as (statically or dynamically) linking with it
by woadwarrior01 1y ago
This is a false analogy. It's quite straightforward.
Running bash (via exec()/fork()/spawn()/etc) isn't the same as (statically or dynamically) linking with its codebase. If your MIT-licensed one-liner links to code that's GPL licensed, then it gets infected by the GPL license.
- themerone 1y agoI've seen people use IPC to workaround the GPL, but I've also seen the FSF interpretations claiming that is still a derived work. I don't know if this has ever been tested in court.
- woadwarrior01 1y agoMy interpretation of their FAQ[1] on it is that shelling out and IPC are fine, while linking is not. As you say, it's ultimately up to the courts to decide on. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
- sim7c00 1y agoyou are correct. its about linking as in LD does it, not conceptual linking.