Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > > > > 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. > > > You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under > > section 3 of the GPL. But that is only for "object code or executable > > form". Debian is distributing it under section 2. Furthermore, the > > thing that Debian distributes doesn't have any parts of anything else > > in it. This is different from compiled C code, which has parts of the > > compiler, libc, and other libraries. So Debian doesn't have to worry > > about compatibility. > > So you believe that we only need to comply with section 2 of the GPL in > order to distribute these scripts, even though the script is an > "executable form" per se? If this is sufficient, that's fine with me; > I just don't see how it's invalid to say that a script, being both source > and executable, must comply with both sections 2 and 3, not just section > 2. Certainly it's *easier* to be able to ignore section 3, it just seems > arbitrary to me.
Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2. Section 3 lets you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be licensed under the GPL). But Debian is not doing that, so there is no need to resort to section 3. Walter
