[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:

> Scripsit tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > 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.
> What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
> here is the *non-interesting* one?

Well, it's the one that matters.  You want to rephrase it, and yet the
phrasing matters.

The bit about whether one of the steps has some important
non-infringing use does not make that step OK, because the relevant
fact is what the person who did it *intendend*, which is a question of
fact that a jury can decide.

If your intention was for it to be part of a complex, which is
infringing, then you are in violation, whether or not what you did
also happens to have some other use.

If it *doesn't* have some other use, then that is *excellent* evidence
of your intention, but it isn't the only way to demonstrate the

Reply to: