Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:18:10PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Actually, some jurisdictions (such as the US) recognize theories of
> > vicarious and/or contributory infringement under which the scripter
> > can be held liable for inciting and/or abetting the direct infringer's
> > conduct. My argument is instead that that binary is perfectly
> > legitimate to begin with.
>
> My argument is that infringment has to actually take place in order for
> there to be contributory infringement. If this is not the case, please
> explain how there can be contributory infringement without any actual
> infringement taking place.
On this point you are entirely correct. I was only concerned about
this part of your statement:
> The rest of
> us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
> easier to compile a certain binary does not equate to distribution of the
> same binary.
If the binary did infringe, the script might well contribute. That's
one reason why we handle DJB's works with such care (see
daemontools-installer).
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: