Split gpl package

[hmaarrfk]

Superseeds #30 (suggested using libedit instead)
Fixes #29

Splits the package into a GPL'ed portion (the binary) and the non-gpl'ed portion (the library). See results from ldd.

(I didn't test it with windows or mac, lets see what the CI's say)

The binary is compiled with readline support, so it must have a GPLv3 license.

Notes from the discussion in #30
@bgruening suggested looking at how debian packages things

I am unfamiliar with debian packaging, but it doesn't seem that they list a license in their package.

They they split their package into an executable package and library.

Checklist

• Used a fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

XREF:
Issue on Continuum repo:

• OSX sqlite3 readline support seems broken ContinuumIO/anaconda-issues#307
• Please compile sqlite with readline support ContinuumIO/anaconda-recipes#27

[hmaarrfk]

@jakirkham I feel like all these lines are just going to cause future pain for packagers. Is there a way to simplify things?

[hmaarrfk]

@jakirkham I really just want to take the "compliment" of these files.

[hmaarrfk]

I guess now it is pretty clean.

[hmaarrfk]

@jakirkham @ocefpaf @scopatz @bgruening

Thank you for your comments on PR #30. I think this PR addresses all the issues and takes a step in the right direction in terms of compliance.

Depending on the feedback I receive from you guys I'll add a GPL license file for the sqlite3 executable.

[scopatz]

I don't think that it is OK to change the license here.

[hmaarrfk]

You mean the win/not win flag?

[scopatz]

I mean that I don't think it is OK to advertise that a license covers a package that the original authors did not intend

[scopatz]

That is, readline is clearly GPL'd and so SQLite should retain its license

[hmaarrfk]

It is important to note that because you are using sqlite+readline, there are 2 authors. And the GPL license is viral by design, and makes the product as a whole GPL.

The source can still be found under Public domain. But this distribution, compiled by conda-forge is GPL. (Unless you claim that APIs are not copyrighted like you did below).

[scopatz]

I don't think that this is strictly true, or at least it is open to legal interpretation. The GPL certainly claims that (dynamically) linking will make the joint program GPL. However, this does not necessarily follow, as when you link the only part of the code that is used is the API, which is non-copyrightable.

[hmaarrfk]

That is fair, but there is no compatible library that has a compatible API (yet) on conda-forge so that argument is rather weak.

I think that along with the dependency on readline, it is hard to argue against the fact that the final product, that arrives on the user's computer is not using GPL code.

[hmaarrfk]

@scopatz, hopefully I incorporated all the mods you requested.

The script is also much improved to ensure that we don't need to keep updating things. Let me know what you think.

[hmaarrfk]

Superseeded by conda-forge/staged-recipes#6550