On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:49:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > [1] P has no copyright on it, so it doesn't have a GPL copyright on it. > > Of course there is a copyright on P. It belongs to A.
You did not mention that A had granted copyright to anyone else, which makes this incompatible with the GPL. > > Then: P is the source code for a program which includes L. A is > > instructing people to download L (if necessary) to compile P. > > Which is perfectly fine, because all of those people explicitly have > the right to download L. There isn't even minor breach of copyright > going on in the B does. Not for the purpose of linking with P, they don't. > > This is a clear attempt to evade the copyright on L. A went to > > considerable effort to design this situation. > > So? The only act protected by copyright is copying. A is doing none > of that. Go do a web search on "contributory infringement". Read up on it until you can define it in your own words, and explain how it applies (or does not apply) to: photo-copiers, napster, etc. If I can ask you a reasonable question about contributory infringement and you can give me an answer that shows you know what it means, then I'll be willing to talk to you further about this. Until then, I'm just wasting my time. Later, -- Raul
