Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:23:24PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >>> > Do you think that this licence does not require a developer >> >>> > of a modified package (other than PHP) to lie by saying >> >>> > "This product includes PHP software"? >> >>> >> >>> Perhaps the PHP folks subscribe to the view that PHP scripts are >> >>> derivative works of PHP. >> >> >> >> Ye ghods, I'd hope not. That would be similar to believing that this >> >> message is a derivative of the English Grammar manual I read in school. >> > >> > Or that all non-trivial Emacs Lisp code must be licensed under the >> > GPL. This position is not *that* unusual... >> >> Not being unusual doesn't make it sensible or correct. > > Just to take a guess at where this strange claim might have originated:
Statements like this one would seem to have something to do with it: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL > The FSF (from what I understand) claims that binaries linked against > GPL libraries are derivative works of the library, because the > resulting binary has pieces of the GPL software in it. This isn't > obviously true with C libraries, which has led to a lot of debate > around the topic, but the claim isn't entirely unreasonable. > > They do not claim (again, AFAIK) that the *source* of the program > using it is a derivative work of the library it uses. > > "PHP scripts are derivative works of PHP" sounds like someone > misinterpreted the FSF's claims, and ended up believing that the > source of a program is a derivative work of its libraries. (That, > unlike the FSF's claims, seems to make very little reasonable > sense.) For compiled languages they do not make this claim. For interpreted languages they appear to be claiming exactly this. The grounds for making such a distinction, or how to make it, are beyond me. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]