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

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 20:57, Richard Braakman wrote:

> 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.

That's not quite correct.

Section 1 covers distributing the source code (and only source code)
without changing it. There are almost no restrictions on this act.

Section 2 says you have the option of changing that source code, and
then distributing that changed code as in section one (i.e., in source
form), so long as you note your changes, license under the GPL, and some
stuff about what the program must display when it starts up.

Section 3 says you can also distribute binaries, given that you mark all
your changes, etc. (the terms of section 2), include source code with
the relevant notices (the terms of section 1), and, in addition do one
of the famous three things [machine readable with it, 3yr offer from
you, 3yr offer from someone else].

> 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".

It truly does not matter if an executable script can be called "object
code" or "executable form." Notice that section three says "You may",
not "If you distribute ... executable form..."

If some part of the license has already given me permission to
distribute, there is no reason I would use section 3's permission to
redistribute. The section that already gave permission is section 2,
because a script is source code.

This doesn't open any holes in the GPL; only section 3 give me
permission to distribute stuff that isn't source code. So your embedded
system would either have to run completely off source code(!) or follow
section 3.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: