Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter
Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with me. Was it that hard to
> tell that my original "different people" scenario was meant as a
> situation where each of the things that each of the parties do is
> something they do because it makes sense in itself to do it. What I
> point out is that such a series of individually innocent steps can end
> up with a state that the original author probably didn't think the GPL
> would allow.
It doesn't matter if it "makes sense in itself". What matters is if
it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone who intended it to be
part of such a total pattern is infringing, even if their piece, in
isolation, would not be. Indeed, *everyone* is infringing, but this
is a case where the "mens rea" (guilty mind) is important; only those
who are intentionally part of that sequence are actually liable.