@ 12/05/2004 16:36 : wrote Humberto Massa :
I changed my mind about this. No, even in the USofA, it's not contributory infringement because the script is not helping *me* to *distribute* undistributable works. It may even be undistributable by itself, or metagcc.patch can be undistributable, but having the script and the patch, an user who runs the script is *NOT* *AT* *ALL* infringing on anybody's copyrights.metagcc.patch is a derived work of your metagcc, which is a derived work of both gcc and metafont, so you cannot distribute metagcc.patch unless it satisfies the terms of gcc's license and metafont's license. Even if that is not the case, wouldn't this script constitute "contributory infringement"?
The user would be just repeating the steps I did _before_ I infringed by putting the patch in someplace it could get it. It can have no legal right to use the patch, but... hmm... no, I don't think there is a problem there.
But yes, you DO have a point. Or two.
maybe only one, but credit where it's due. -- br,M