On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > > > 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. > That's exactly what the text says in fact, in qualifying the "just > data" statement. I'm sorry, I'm not sure if your comments support or contradict my interpretation. By "the text", do you mean the text of the GPL, or the text of the FAQ? The GPL doesn't talk about data at all, and the only qualification in the FAQ is with reference to using GPL-incompatible bindings from a GPL script. My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable. Interpreters seem to fall into a gap in the source code definition of section three, somewhere between "all the source code for all modules it contains, plus associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" and "the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs". If an exception is needed for the compiler and kernel, is an exception not also needed for an interpreter? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpOU2wEam3TR.pgp
Description: PGP signature