3/30    Is it Kosher to write a closed-source program which calles a GPL
        program on the command line but does not link to it?
        \_ Very likely yes, but people will disagree with you.  For
           instance, I'm sure there are many apps which call gcc, or
           cvs/svn (not sure about the license on the latter 2, but for
           gcc, I think it's GPL-not-LGPL.
           \_ I think it depends whether you are bundling the GPL utility
              with your program.  If you just call "mv" or whatever,
              GPL has nothing to say about that, but if you include a
              binary in your closed-source distribution, I think that's
              a violation.  -tom
              \_ What about a closed-source distribution which includes the
                 binary of the GPL as well as the source for only the GPL
                 component.  The closed-source project would just call
                 "$GPLPROG $ARGS" through a shell.
                 \_ I believe one of the complaints a lot of people have
                    about the GPL is that it requires you to open-source your
                    entire project if you use any GPL code in your
                    distribution.  So, I don't think you can use it the way
                    you describe.  -tom
        \_ This is a complicated issue. One point of view is that it is not
           only the code that is GPL'ed but also the calling interface,
           provided that the calling interface does not conform to an
           external "standard" (a non-gpl program that implements the same
           cli opts, might be a "standard" for this purpose).
           Perhaps the more mainstream point of view is that the gpl only
           applies to incorporation, ie you have one big binary in which
           some src files are gpl'ed. As long as you don't distrubte the
           gpl'ed pgm in binary only you are probably okay.
       \_ Related question: Can a function from a GPL project be included into
          a LGPL project, since the LGPL is *more* free?