I don't understand. Are you afraid of being able to see the source code of the program you are going to use? You are not forced to look at it, if you don't want to.
My current bane is BlueZ, which used to allow for a compile-time removal of readline but no more.
He was basically saying that seeing readline pulled as one of the dependencies gives him confidence that the tool won't suck. He said nothing about building tools with readline support (implicit or otherwise).
... you did write and release a replacement in the license you like, right? right?
GPLv3 means that you can't use it with the code you write for your job. And there are cases where readline can sneak into the codebase through unintended routes.
I know you get the distinction, but I hear too often that "we can't use GPLv3 software at work" from people who aren't clear on it.
It is. E.g. if you have a contractor working with your company, then giving software can be considered "distribution". And the contractor can gain the right to re-distribute your internal software.
It's OK to use GPL for software that runs in separate processes (e.g. GDB), but readline is really sneaky because it's a library.
I've never been tempted to think I had any right whatsoever to my employers' internal materials. That would be a highly unusual, maybe unprecedentedly so, situation.
Technically, a litigious-happy contractor can use that to cause a lot of damage to the company. So that's why many companies (e.g. Apple) just ban as much GPLv3 software as they can.
> To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
in their faq about gplv2, the fsf explicitly takes the side of your hypothetical 'litigious-happy contractor' https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistrib...
> Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? (#InternalDistribution)
> No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
> However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
note that this is talking about gplv2 ('distribution'), so presumably contractors can already sue apple for this if apple uses gplv2 code in internal tools; they might not win, but the fsf thinks they should
(emphasis mine)