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

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter



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: pgp7doExZBl4W.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: