* Anthony W. Youngman: > Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode?
Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode? > 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. > 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). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org