On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > If I write a QT gui that forks/exec x264 cli and want to sell it as the > best H264 encoder on the market, then I have to comply with x264 > license since it won't do what I claim once x264 is removed.
The QT gui could be distributed under any license you care to, since it doesn't contain anything from x264. It might not actually do anything without the x264 binary, but it can be legally redistributed on its own under your choice of license (if you're the author). Now, if you want to redistribute the x264 binary then of course you need to comply the with the x264 license. Running a program from a script doesn't make your script a derivative work of that program. They each have their own license, and can be independently redistributed. > If I want to sell the same program as a QT gui for x264 cli, then it is > far less clear whether it is derivative work, but I'll certainly have > more difficulties in selling it :) I don't really see how marketing changes something's status as a derivative work. Certainly I'm not aware of any court decision to this effect, or any law. > Back to the subject, a CDDL ebuild is a CDDL script to install a > program. If you can't install the program without the GPL parts (that > are distributed inside the same binpkg iirc), then it is derivative > work. I disagree. We in fact allow GPL ebuilds in the Gentoo repository that install proprietary software which is subject to licenses which are GPL-incompatible. The fact that your script automates running a bunch of proprietary code doesn't change the fact that your script itself is completely free software, governed by its own license. -- Rich
