>>>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman 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? Generally, the user can execute any combination of such functions on his system, without violating their licenses. The question is if a combined work containing parts of the ebuild and of the eclass can be distributed. Now a Gentoo binary package contains an xpak part, which in turn contains a file named environment.bz2 where you will find functions originating both from the ebuild and from its inherited eclasses. Certainly the xpak is a derived work of ebuild _and_ eclasses, so for distributing the binpkg both CDDL (to come back to the original example) and GPL-2 would have to be honoured. Which is not possible because these two licenses are incompatible. Ulrich
pgphv0JiErk6N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
