On 05-04-2012 23:30, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 05/04/12 20:56, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
*Confused*. The way I see it, this situation is exactly equivalent to
having a
readily-available Autotools script that relies on a proprietary
Autotools?
No, because it's _contained within_ the build script. Everything within
the build script has to comply with the license terms.
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?
I think that's about it. It's contained in the build script, so it's
considered part of the build script; and therefore subject to the same
terms and conditions.
By comparison, a Makefile doesn't _contain_ make; make is a separate
piece of software that's used to _interpret_ the Makefile.
OK, I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a
misunderstanding here: With Waf, you *do* write a build script like you
do with e.g. Make, and this so-called wscript sits outside Waf. See for
example: https://github.com/lycus/mci/blob/master/wscript
The Waf binary loads up this script and executes it when you issue build
commands, much like Make does for Makefiles.
--
- Alex
