On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 10:14:59AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > To take Chris Lawrence's post a step further, what is the difference between > having a pound-bang line for a non-free interpreter and executing a GPL binary > on a closed source system? It is permissible for libc to be non-free and a > program to use it. The closed system's kernel is for all intents and purposes > an interpreter.
None whatsoever -- which is why, in both cases, shipping the GPLed work WITH the GPL-incompatible component it depends on is prohibited. > I think this is simply ideology getting in the way. Odd, I thought ideology was the point of the GPL. ;) Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgp3Jv2kUVujx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
