Closed samboy closed 1 year ago
Your interpretation is correct. The make program is public domain (with a licence based on the Unlicense) and the testsuite is GPL. There's no link between the two, one just happens to live in a subdirectory of the other.
Shipping a binary based on the public domain code wouldn't result in any obligation under the GPL to provide the testsuite.
At least, that's my interpretation, for what it's worth.
Thanks. Here’s my point of view, as someone with extensive professional programming experience: Ever since the SFLC lawsuits, the corporate reaction has not been for them to GPL or otherwise open source a bunch of code. The reaction has been to avoid anything with a GPL license whenever possible. I have run scanners which scan packages incorporating open source code to ensure that we were not using a single bit of GPL licensed code in our product.
Indeed, Apple has spent a lot of money getting LLVM and clang up to snuff so that they can have a compiler without needing to use GPL code, and will not distribute any GPL3 code with their products. The GPL Busybox has mostly been replaced with the non-copyleft Toybox (which has everything major except sh
and awk
, both of which have non-GPL open source implementations)
Point being, there are a lot of use cases where a GPL license will stop people from using a given open source project, so I prefer not to have it in any code I may distribute.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. Closing ticket.
I observe this program is under two licenses, a public domain license in the top level directory, and a GPL license in the
testsuite/
directory. Since none of the programs in the top-level directory link to programs in thetestsuite/
directory, I presume it is only files intestsuite/
that have the GPL license.Please clarify this.