Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> 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.

To follow up on my last message, and explain why I wasn't satisfied
with your phrasing here:

"makes sense in itself to do it" isn't the actual test.

Indeed, if it *doesn't* make sense in itself, then that is evidence
that they actually did intend it as part of the total action.  

But even if it *does* "make sense in itself to do it", that doesn't
make it OK, because what really matters is the person's *intention*.

So:

"doesn't make sense in itself"  ->  "intends it as part of the
                                     infringing sequence" ->  "infringes"

But the converse is not necessarily true.

Thomas