Christos Zoulas writes: > In article <17305.1474483...@splode.eterna.com.au>, > matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote: > >> Added Files: > >> src/usr.sbin/mdsetimage: bin.h bin_bfd.c bin_nlist.c > > > >bin_bfd.c is the bfd aka GPL client. that individual source > >belongs in src/external/gpl3. > > > >i understand that the version we install is bfd free, but the > >tools version is not, and thus the viral aspect of this becomes > >murky. i'd rather we kept the whole thing in gpl3 subdir so > >that it's clear these sources are tainted. > > The version we install is not gpl free. The non-gpl version was not > toolified (because it uses our nlist from libc). We could toolify it.
i'm confused. the version we install has all netbsd-code and does not use libbfd, and none of the code has gpl copyright. what part of it is not gpl free that taints the whole? the only GPL tainting part is the bin_bfd.c code which is not used for the installed version. > I will move bin_bfd.c to external/gpl3, but it is our source not GPL. > It does not contain GPL code and it is useless standalone. it uses libbfd, which is a GPL-only library. there is no argument for it to be considered anything but to depend upon GPL code, which means it must be considered GPL as well, if distributed (which we do every second :-) we can say it is dual BSD/GPL but we can't safely say it isn't GPL. that said, i think it is fine to put just bin_bfd.c into the gpl3 subdir, as we clearly have no actual gpl dependency on bfd code as there is an nlist version as well. thanks .mrg.
