3 ms·
>Would using a GPL test suite with an MIT implementation make the whole GPL? Absolutely not. MIT is a FSF-approved GPL-compatible license and you're free to u
by jnbiche 12y ago
>Would using a GPL test suite with an MIT implementation make the whole GPL?
Absolutely not. MIT is a FSF-approved GPL-compatible license and you're free to use it with whatever GPL-licensed packages you wish[0].
However, if you package and distribute the Rust coreutils with the GPL test suite, then the users of the package are obliged to either use GPL, MIT, or some other FSF-approved OS license.
But it's simple enough to package the Rust coreutils without the test suite, which puts the Rust coreutils users under no GPL obligations.
GPL2 is all about the distributing of software, not how you use it.
I do agree that any use of a GPL package will make some folks using this package in commercial software nervous, given the very few (none?) actual court cases that have decided these issues.
0. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/
- __david__ 12y ago> However, if you package and distribute the Rust coreutils with the GPL test suite, then the users of the package are obliged to either use GPL, MIT, or some other FSF-approved OS license. I don't think this is right. The programs in question are the test suite, and there's can certainly distribute complete programs licensed under the GPL alongside with programs under even non-free licenses (otherwise Mac OS X couldn't ship). Since the test suite doesn't link against the individual utilities, it won't affect them, license-wise. It is well understood that the GPL doesn't cross executable boundaries (again, otherwise Mac OS X is in trouble).
- jnbiche 12y agoYou're absolutely right. I was thinking of AGPL, which does cross network boundaries.
- angersock 12y agoAnd that's why it's to be avoided like the plague. :(
- steveklabnik 12y agoOr, that's why to use it instead of the GPL.