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).
[expr] and [expr]. A patch is a document; it can ask the original [expr] or a different [expr] to interpret "1+1".
the patch is also code (a .c file with c-code in it looks like a text document; it _is_ a document (try opening it with notepad); but it is code too) if '(the patch) can ask the original [expr] or a different [expr] to interpret "1+1"', then the patch has ceased to be a passive document and *actively* links to a library (either this [expr] or another). in this case, there is no doubt, that if the patch asks the GPL'ed [expr] to interpret "1+1" it has to be GPL too.
however, usually the patch cannot decide which object it uses - that's why we are discussing.
mfga.sdr. IOhannes