[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Kon Lovett
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: Backdoor GPL in message-digest
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:44:48 -0700

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

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".


Best Wishes,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]