Hello, What is the list's opinion of this entry in the FSF's GPL FAQ? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally? I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary Unices have always gone out of their way to make sure GPL software is not shipped together with their kernel, in order to take advantage of the GPL's "OS component" exception. I would think that the real protection the GPL provides for such scripts is in fact the OS component exception, since such scripts are rarely distributed together with their GPL-incompatible interpreters; but of course, this means that Debian is not able to take advantage of this protection, just as we cannot distribute GPL applications linked against OpenSSL without an exemption from the copyright holder. If this is the case, there are a number of GPL PHP packages in Debian which would need to be examined. I don't believe that licensing a PHP script under the GPL can be seen as implicit permission to distribute the script together with the interpreter, if this can be understood as prohibited by the letter of the license. In particular, the history of phpnuke and its author, as well as the text of the package's copyright file, make me wary of possible repercussions. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpDbcBG3Cr3p.pgp
Description: PGP signature