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.
To follow up on my last message, and explain why I wasn't satisfied
with your phrasing here:
"makes sense in itself to do it" isn't the actual test.
Indeed, if it *doesn't* make sense in itself, then that is evidence
that they actually did intend it as part of the total action.
But even if it *does* "make sense in itself to do it", that doesn't
make it OK, because what really matters is the person's *intention*.
So:
"doesn't make sense in itself" -> "intends it as part of the
infringing sequence" -> "infringes"
But the converse is not necessarily true.
Thomas
