Re: bash completion script licensing
* Anthony W. Youngman:
> Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode?
Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode?
> Maybe I'm being dense, but in the case of something like a bash
> script, the distributor is distributing source therefore the licence
> of the interpreter is irrelevant.
The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, "further
restrictions" are not allowed. So having source code is not
sufficient for compliance.
> And when the script is run, it is the end-user doing the linking, so
> the GPL is irrelevant.
The same argument applies to dynamic linking. Some people do not
accept it because it is the end of the GPL for libraries (and of
royalties for component software).
Reply to: