20040701 [CMcC]: [GPL] is a free software license with a requirement that you distribute source code with any ''Program or Work'' under the following (or similar) provisions:

    3a) [[you must]] Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
    which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used
    for software interchange

Given that all scripts are immediately also 'machine-readable source code', it seems to me that distributing a pure tcl source file under GPL does nothing but prevent someone byte-compiling it, or possibly obfuscating it (which doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing.)

In particular, I don't believe that [[[source] GPL.tcl] imposes the GPL on the code executing it, and I strongly disbelieve that it entails anything about the license of the interpreter under which the code is running.

My argument, by analogy, is that the relationship between a tcl script and the interpreter under which it runs is that of a Virtual Machine, analogous with the relationship between a C program and the O/S under which it runs.   If it were necessary for the distributor of a GPL.tcl script to provide source to tclsh, it would analogously be necessary for the distributor of a GPL.c program to provide source to Windows under some circumstances.  Since nobody has every alleged the latter, the former is by analogy untrue.  (NB: I understand there is some problem with argument by analogy :)

I therefore don't understand the prevailing aversion to [GPL] among tclers.
-----
[JMN] 2003-07-01 Your particular 'beliefs' are one thing; but it may be the particular 'beliefs' and interpretations of some hick judge in some jurisdictional backwater who ends up doing the actual pronouncements of what *exactly* terms like linking & distribution mean. (e.g If my business splits in two.. have I 'distributed' my code base??).
Actually I don't care to have such questions answered.. why suffer code under such lengthy legalese open to multiple interpretations & nuances. Keep the license simple like Tcl itself and the problems go away.
-----
[SLB] The [GPL] FAQ [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html] answers the question
of sourcing a GPL Tcl script pretty clearly in its question 'Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free program?' (short answer 'no').

[CMcC] It's far from clear.  The question you mention begins ''If the program dynamically links plug-ins...''.  The term dynamic linking has its usual specific technical meaning, and this doesn't include sourcing a script into an interpreter.  [[[source] GPL.tcl] in a script could be construed as dynamic linkage in the technical sense, but loading GPL.tcl into an interpreter isn't the same thing at all, it's like loading a program onto your (abstract) computer.
----
[Category Contentious Bastardry]