[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Aug 04, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 10:14:59AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > To take Chris Lawrence's post a step further, what is the difference between
> > having a pound-bang line for a non-free interpreter and executing a GPL binary
> > on a closed source system?  It is permissible for libc to be non-free and a
> > program to use it.  The closed system's kernel is for all intents and purposes
> > an interpreter.
> None whatsoever -- which is why, in both cases, shipping the GPLed work
> WITH the GPL-incompatible component it depends on is prohibited.

However, contrib and non-free are generally not shipped together;
contrib is (generally) included on official CDs while non-free is not.
Hence the "with" clause only really bites us in the ass when we have
two DFSG-free components, one GPLed and one GPL-incompatible (KDE/Qt
in the olden days, etc.).

Having said that, someone who distributed graphviz and the proposed
package together would be in violation.  However, we don't do that,
and in fact actively discourage it, by basically discouraging
distribution of non-free through requiring any non-free vendor to do
their own manual sieve on "sufficiently free to stick on a for-$ CD".

Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/

Instructor and Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi
208 Deupree Hall - 662-915-5765

Reply to: