* Anthony W. Youngman:Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode?Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode?
I meant bytecode - along the lines of "basic is interpreted code, but sometimes it's pre-processed".
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.
Yes, but if I'm a DISTRIBUTOR, I don't have the power to change the licence, so if I receive source-code and pass it on, then the GPL is irrelevant, other than it gives me permission to "copy what I have".
If all I do is copy it (for which the GPL gives me permission) and distribute the copies UNCHANGED, then I have not added "further restrictions" and I am not in breach of the GPL.
So source code IS sufficient for compliance, if I am a DISTRIBUTOR who is just passing on copies.
Maybe. But life is shades of grey, not black-and-white. And imho, when applied rigidly (in *either* direction) that argument leads to idiocy.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).
Personally, I would be COMPLETELY happy, as author, distributor, OR end-user, to use GPL libraries with proprietary programs IF those proprietary programs were distributed AS SOURCE. I've actually used a couple of libraries like that (although they didn't link to GPL stuff - this was when Free Software was just beginning to take off).
Let's say I write a program that uses loads of GPL software, and I licence it under a proprietary licence. If I distribute MY code, as source, and leave it to the user to do the compiling, linking etc, where is any copyright violation? You can't do me, because I haven't distributed any GPL code (and the GPL lets me use it on MY computers). You can't do the user, for the same reasons. And you can't do the distributors, because they've never been near GPL code.
Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk