On Sat Jan 03 09:22, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange > > > interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not > > > sure how sourced bash scripts are supposed to be considered in this > > > context, I wonder if having such a CDDL bash script would be > > > problematic license-wise. > > > > There would be no problem with a CDDL bash script per-se, any more than > > there would be with a CDDL jpeg or a GPL word document. I suppose you > > could argue that since it is modifying the behaviour of one of bash's > > built-in functions it counts under the (already dubious) GPL linkage > > clause, but I think it would be a stretch. > > I'd add that "require" or "import" in perl, python, ruby, etc. fall > under the GPL linkage clause. Why would bash's "source" not ? > Yes, but they aren't linking with _perl itself_ but rather with the other perl script they are imported to. Now, you might not be able to use such a bash completion script if your ~/.bashrc is licenced under the GPL (-; Also, rereading the OP, the licence of other bash completion scripts _might_ be an issue, but I don't think the licence of bash itself is an issue. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature