On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:17:08 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is >> > not entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed >> > ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be distributable at >> > all. >> >> Honestly, I think the GPL linking argument is a difficult one at best, >> but setting that aside I think it is even harder to consider calling a >> function in an interpreted language "linking." Is it a violation of >> the GPL to execute a GPL binary from a bash script that is >> GPL-incompatible? Heck, is it a violation of the other license for >> the GPL bash interpreter to read and execute the non-GPL lines in the >> script? > > The concept is "derived work": If your script cannot work without the > GPL binary, then it is derived work. >
I don't think any well-recognized organization argues that scripts are derived works of the binaries they call. Besides, literally the only thing about the binary that a script contains is the name of the binary, and some command line options. This seems like it is going even further than suggesting that APIs be copyrightable. -- Rich
