I think the referenced link is a different situation. In that case, an executable is being compiled using the readline library. The Clojure CLI contains a bash script that invokes rlwrap but does not compile, link, or distribute rlwrap or readline.
>From the GPL FAQ (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation) this is a case of an "aggregate". rlwrap and clojure are separate programs communicating via pipes etc. On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:28 AM Leandro Doctors <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 10:37, Alex Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > clj is not packaged with rlwrap, but will use it if it's available (and > won't if it's not - it's optional). > > Thank you very much for your reply, Alex. > > > >From what I could see from `clj`'s source code, I understood the > following: > > If `rlwrap` is present, `clj` will run `clojure` wrapped with it - if > `rlrwarp` is not present, `clj` will direct the user to (literally) > "install rlwrap for command editing or use `clojure` instead". > > Is this right? > > Because, if so, then, `clj`'s sole objective would be to allow the > user to use `rlwrap` to run `clojure`, right? > > If so, then I can clearly differentiate two similar yet different use > cases: > > UC1) running `clojure` exclusively by itself (implemented by the > `clojure` command) > UC2) running `clojure` exctlusively wrapped with `rlwrap` (implemented > by the `clj` script) > > > The fact that the UC2's implementation's existence (`clj`) depends on > `rlwrap` reminds me to the discussion in pointed to before [1]. > > [1]: > https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/-/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL > > Have you already read the arguments stated there? > (In case you haven't done it already, I strongly yet humbly advise you > to do so). > > > Dear Alex: I am well aware that licensing can be considered a thorny > subject by some people. Again, I'm here as a mere Clojure fan trying > his best so the full Clojure CLI functionality is available in Debian. > And my objective is simply to raise (only in the case I am right!) > *what I consider* could become a *potentially important* legal issue. > > Nothing more. > > ...But nothing less. > > > All that being said, as I have stated before I am not a lawyer, and > this is no legal advise. After all, I could be completely wrong about > all this... > > > Best, > Leandro > >
