Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter
Scripsit starner@okstate.edu
[I wrote the double-quoted text even though 'starner' tries to hide that]
> > For example, the one who ports the program to the
> >proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
> >free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
> >environment.
> How does this differ from, say, Emacs on Windows?
I'm not sure that it does, formally. That is part of the problem: that
it is not easy to describe objectively which instances of the pattern
are objectionable.
> I'm sure that Emacs has been extended to do some interesting Windows
> specific things, and probably could be extended to do really
> interesting things (like properly handle Unicode text, even of
> complex scripts like Tibetan) if someone cared to.
I think I have seen this emacs 20 (running Linux) display some
mightily bizarre scripts, too.
> Should we prohibit that, just because we couldn't port it back to
> Un*x?
I'm not saying that *we* should prohibit anything (obviously we're not
in a position to do that, at least in our capacity of debian-legal
regulars). I'm saying that one can imagine scenarios where the
original author would judge the end result to be at odds with their
intentions in applying the GPL to their work.
--
Henning Makholm "We will discuss your youth another time."
Reply to: