On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:42:44PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even > > closed-source one. I'd love to use this conservative garbage collector > > library, but it's under GPL, so I cannot. I'd also love to use > > libreadline, but I can't - for it's GPL. > > > > According to what you've just said it would be enough to create own > > intermediate langauge, and an interpreter that according to its own > > specification should handle garbage collection and provide readline-like > > functionality. > > > > I would then just take the GPLed code of this GC library, GPLed code > > of readline, cut out the pieces I need, integrate into my interepreter > > and call it "interepter features". Thus, according to you, my > > GPL-incompatible program would be able to use GPLed code thanks to > > the simple virtue of my program being "interepted". > > Yes. Well, you have to distribute the interpreter for this new > language of yours under the GPL. So the GPL isn't useless. And > your proprietary program then must use the interpreter. > > But, for example, I *have* such an interpreter -- for the language > Python. I have many non-GPL'd scripts for it, even though the Python > I use incorporates GNU Readline. Bwah, you're all *still* doing it! Some of those python scripts may be derivatives of GNU readline. Most are probably not. Those that are must be licensed under the GPL. The rest do not have to be. All this interpreter crud in between is *irrelevant*. If the same program written in C would be a derivative then it's still a derivative even when you insert an interpreter in the middle. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature