On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:57:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Scripsit tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > > > Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes: > > > > 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. > > I don't want to rephrase anything. In fact I've tried hard to go with > > your phrasing each time. However, I see that it is impossible to get > > you to understand what I'm trying to say, so I'll stop trying here. > I think I *do* understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that > the distinction you are trying to raise is orthogonal to the legal > one, which always looks to your intention. So that there is no way to > evade the GPL by doing things that happen to be individually OK, and > in sum, just happen to get around the license. They only way to do > this is if it is *really* an accident; not as something you plan on, > since that would, ipso facto, be an intention. But if it's really accidental, that means no one's connected all of the dots to create an infringing whole. The moment someone *does* connect those dots, *that* person is in violation of the GPL. So I agree, there's no way to get the software into an infringing state without one or more parties being liable for GPL violation. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpM2D2PdENbF.pgp
Description: PGP signature