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? To me linking and word processing are actually on a continuum and I think it is hard to draw a line and say that the GPL prohibits one and not the other, but if you are going to try to draw a line I think interpreted languages are going to fall on the safe side of it. I guess it comes down to what are the essential elements of linking that leads one to believe that it constitutes a violation of copyright to do it without explicit permission? If there is agreement on that (which I think is harder to achieve than some seem to think), then the question becomes whether calling a function in an interpreted language contains those elements. > > So can we be strict there, please? Contributed ebuilds should have our > standard copyright header, or they will be rejected. > Certainly this is the current policy. The draft policy envisions a table of licenses for each project, and we of course can make that table as restrictive or free as desired. I do think it makes sense to whitelist licenses individually by project for the very sorts of reasons that you bring up. -- Rich
