Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
none <chloehoffman@hotmail.com>:
> ("[T]here can be no contributory infringement by a
> defendant without direct infringement by another.")
> Henning's point which I believe is a valid one is that an end-user needs to
> infringe in order for someone else to be found a contributory infringer. If
> the end-users are licensed, there can be no contributory infringement.
This is what I thought. So contributory infringement is not relevant
here. By ordering us to read up about contributory infringement, I
think Raul is trying to deliberately waste our time! :-)
However, I think Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> has a much more valid
point when he writes:
> The work comprised of P+L is being distributed, albeit using
> a covert mechanism.
I find it plausible that the law could and should work this way.
So do people agree with the following?
X distributes a program P under the GPL. Y distributes a program Q
under another licence which is incompatible with the GPL. Then Z
starts advertising and distributing, by means of singing strippers or
otherwise, a script that links P and Q together. Then Z is infringing
X's copyright. And it's not a contributory infringement; it's a direct
infringement according to our "covert distribution doctrine".
I'm quite happy with this way of thinking. It saves the GPL from being
bypassed without allowing copyright holders to restrict the way data
is used by people who have legitimately obtained a copy of it.
Edmund
Reply to: