Someone posed a very similar question on Slashdot <www.slashdot.org> and there is a lively debate going on over there. The URL (don't know if this is static, and will therefore work for some time) is: http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/99/07/12/2224228.shtml In a nutshell, the question was: If I write a program subject to the GPL, and the program processes files, and in the process inserts pieces of itself into the output, then is the output subject to the GPL, and if so, how do I avoid that? This question seems very similar to the concept of building a standalone with OpenCard. I haven't read but a smattering of the answers, so I don't know how well these two opinions held up under scrutiny, but two proposed answers were: 1. make the part that gets inserted either literally or figuratively not part of your GPL'd code. Literally, by making it a separate file that also gets read in at runtime, or figuratively, by compressing it within your GPL'd code, and only decompressing it at runtime. 2. simply add an exclusion to the GPL license on your code, to the effect, "The output of this program is not a derivative work of this program, and has no restrictions. You may use this program to produce/process your own programs and data without affecting your copyright on those programs or data." My (non-lawyer) sense is that (2) should work, especially if you make it explicitly override everything else in the license, with some sort of preface like, "Notwithstanding any other statements in this license to the contrary, ..." Then the problem is reversed; you have perhaps granted too much freedom. But if the clause only references the standalone (compiled) code generated in producing a standalone with OpenCard, I would think that would meet the requirements. my 1.9999999 cents worth Geoff Canyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] "C.D. Caterpillar teaches kids how to read, not how to watch cartoons."
