[Fsf-friends] Re: [FSUG-Bangalore] Which license should I use?

[Kushal Das]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 04:10, Anand Babu wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 12:08:33PM +0530, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
> ,----
>
> | Anand Babu wrote:
> | > My recommendation is to adopt GNU GPL and find an alternative for
> | > the MPL'ed code or write one yourself. You can also ask the MPL'ed
> | > code author to dual-license with GNU GPL.
> |
> | What happen's when the application in question only *installs*
> | binary only packages that are licensed under licenses which are GPL
> | incompatible ?
> |
> | eg. I create an application/interface that installs two RPMs for two
> | packages A and B. A is GPL compatible if not GPL itself and B is GPL
> | incompatible. How do I license my interface/application or does the
> | license for my application (which in a non strict sense is only an
> | installer) as GPL compatible meet all requirements ?
>
> `----
> You have to be precise. Saying "Installing" is not sufficient.
>
> GPL incompatible free software license allows you to redistribute but
> doesn't allow you to link your GPL'ed code to it even in binary form.
> Because the binary code still runs inside your application context.
>
> So you can re-distribute but not link.

Lets say there is a package named XYZ.rpm which is in  MPL. And my 
application, which is in GPL,  is a shell script with the following line:

rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm

Then what ?

Regards,
Kushal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://gnowledge.org/pipermail/fsug-bangalore/attachments/20060808/24cc3626/attachment.pgp