Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally? > > > I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary > > > executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary > > > Unices have always gone out of their way to make sure GPL software is not > > > shipped together with their kernel, in order to take advantage of the > > > GPL's "OS component" exception. > > > That's exactly what the text says in fact, in qualifying the "just > > data" statement. > > I'm sorry, I'm not sure if your comments support or contradict my > interpretation. By "the text", do you mean the text of the GPL, or the > text of the FAQ? The GPL doesn't talk about data at all, and the only > qualification in the FAQ is with reference to using GPL-incompatible > bindings from a GPL script.
I mean the text of the FAQ. > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together > with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable. Except that the authors of the GPL have said that this is the correct intpretation *if* the interpreter is the ordinary kind of programming language interpreter that we know of.
