Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: Backdoor GPL in message-digest

[Kon Lovett]

The below is moot since I moved everything into "own eggs", where they  
belong anyway.

On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Peter Bex wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:43:21PM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> > Assume a component of package A uses something that is GPL'ed, but no
> > other component in that package uses the GPL tainted component (it is
> > "just along for the ride"). Then all components of package A are
> > tainted?
>
> If package A is one binary or a set of binaries that always get linked
> to a package using it, then it does.  It's called a "derivative work".
> Yes, this is insane.

Yeah, I deliberately did not mention "linked", only "packaged", since  
I don't see them as the same thing. W/O the benefit of hazy memory I  
seem to recall that the GPL talks of "link editing" but it may also  
speak of anything distributed, "linked" or not.

In the "format-compiler-base" used by "error-utils" in "check-errors"  
situation nothing got linked, only packaged. Unless "errorf" is  
actually used then no linkage occurs. (And, at the time, the only  
module using "errorf" was "simple-units".)

I'm just saying that in the "check-errors" package none of the other  
modules were actually exposed to the contagion from the GPL tainted  
"error-utils".

<snip>

Best Wishes,
Kon