"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not > believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing "interepter > features" and see what would be the consequences. > > An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even > closed-source one. I'd love to use this conservative garbage collector > library, but it's under GPL, so I cannot. I'd also love to use > libreadline, but I can't - for it's GPL. > > According to what you've just said it would be enough to create own > intermediate langauge, and an interpreter that according to its own > specification should handle garbage collection and provide readline-like > functionality. > > I would then just take the GPLed code of this GC library, GPLed code > of readline, cut out the pieces I need, integrate into my interepreter > and call it "interepter features". Thus, according to you, my > GPL-incompatible program would be able to use GPLed code thanks to > the simple virtue of my program being "interepted".
Yes. Well, you have to distribute the interpreter for this new language of yours under the GPL. So the GPL isn't useless. And your proprietary program then must use the interpreter. But, for example, I *have* such an interpreter -- for the language Python. I have many non-GPL'd scripts for it, even though the Python I use incorporates GNU Readline. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
