For example: an MIT-licensed project wishes to simplify the build process for its users by including part of the GNU toolchain (which is of course GPL) as a Submodule. Could that be interpreted as making the MIT project a derived work of the GNU toolchain? Does including a project as a Git Submodule (or some similar mechanism - maybe even just a Bash script that downloads it) count as redistributing that project? What about if the Makefile also built the sub-project?In my opinion (and probably most peoples') the answer to those questions is a clear no. I'm more interested in hearing the precedents and norms surrounding this issue than discussing our own interpretations of copyright law. Do you know of any open-source projects that have Submodules under incompatible licenses? Do you know of anyone who has deliberately avoided them, and why they did that?Just to clarify for non-Git-people: Submodules don't cause the actual content to be included, they're like pointers to a different repo. In the example I gave, when you cloned the MIT project and ran git submodule init, Git would automatically download the GNU code from a GNU repo.
Is licensing an issue for Git Submodules?
licensing;version control;git
The Android Open Source Project almost exactly mirrors the case I used in my example: the bulk of the source is under the Apache license, but they use a mechanism equivalent to Git submodules to deliver the GNU toolchain.