On 05-04-2012 20:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 05/04/12 18:16, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
In that case, that doesn't stop Waf though - your Waf build script is
just in
plain source form while Waf itself (which runs the script) is in
compressed form.
But it does, for exactly the reasons I outlined. GPL-wise, that
zipped-up part would be considered part of the build script -- after
all, it's included in it, and so covered by the GPL provisions.
*Confused*. The way I see it, this situation is exactly equivalent to
having a readily-available Autotools script that relies on a proprietary
Autotools?
It would be different if it was an entirely independent package
separately installed on the system, but as we already discussed, Waf is
not designed to be used that way.
I don't quite understand this, though. The fact that Waf sits in a
source control repository shouldn't really matter at all. It could as
well sit anywhere on your system; it just isn't designed for that.
Is the problem here that the GPL considers Waf part of this whole thing
because you generally ship the Waf binary in source distributions of
your software?
--
- Alex
