Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with me. Was it that hard to > tell that my original "different people" scenario was meant as a > situation where each of the things that each of the parties do is > something they do because it makes sense in itself to do it. What I > point out is that such a series of individually innocent steps can end > up with a state that the original author probably didn't think the GPL > would allow.
It doesn't matter if it "makes sense in itself". What matters is if it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone who intended it to be part of such a total pattern is infringing, even if their piece, in isolation, would not be. Indeed, *everyone* is infringing, but this is a case where the "mens rea" (guilty mind) is important; only those who are intentionally part of that sequence are actually liable.
