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

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:00:27PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2.  Section 3 lets
> you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed
> in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be
> licensed under the GPL).  But Debian is not doing that, so there is no
> need to resort to section 3.

This sounds wrong to me, because the requirement to include source code
is only in section 3.  And section 3 specifically says "distribute under
the terms of Sections 1 and 2", so it can't be more permissive than
those sections.  In fact, it imposes an extra requirement.

If we go by your interpretation, then any self-contained GPL executable
(for example, a flash image for an embedded linux system) can be
distributed without source code.

I read section 3 as being an additional restriction on modifications
that are also "object code or executable form".  The open question is
then whether an executable script is in "executable form".

Richard Braakman

Reply to: