Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 21 Juin 2006 09:55, Tim Blechmann a écrit :
Just like a patch using [expr] does not contains a copy of [expr].
loading expr could be interpreted as binding to facilities: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL
But the binding occurs between [expr] and Pd, not between a patch using
no, the binding occurs between [expr] and the patch (both are run by Pd). your argumentation would render GPL on any interpreted language meaningless. however, fsf thinks (and i believe they have asked their lawyers who probably know more about legal issues than me) that GPL is applicable to interpreted languages (else all those quoted FAQ entries would not make sense).
What I don't understand at all about http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL is this:
The FAQ-answer first states, that I'm not obliged to put the GPL or anything compatible on an interpreted program, even if the interpreter is GPL, because my interpreted program is "just data" to the interpreter.
But then later it says, that if I'm using some modules of that interpreted language, that are GPL, in my "just data"-program, I'm suddenly obliged to use GPL or compatible.
I mean, if the interpreter is GPL and I'm not bound by its terms, then why is is, that if I'm using some GPL's extensions of that interpreter, that I'm now bound to the GPL?
How comes, that my "just data" program now became more than "just data"?
I mean, I'm not opposed to using the GPL, as you all should know by now, but: I just don't get it!?
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__