[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL question
From: |
Richard Tobin |
Subject: |
Re: GPL question |
Date: |
17 May 2007 20:17:10 GMT |
In article <87ejlfr1nu.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>,
John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>> But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has
>> some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative
>> in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't
>> distribute the derivative work, where does the GPL come into it?
>The original author might be found liable for contributory infringement.
On the face of it, no-one has distributed a derivative work, so that
there is no infringement to contribute to. But David's theory that
the two acts together constitute distribution might be correct.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
- Re: GPL question, (continued)
- Re: GPL question, David Kastrup, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, David Kastrup, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, David Kastrup, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/18
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question,
Richard Tobin <=
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/17
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/18
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Bilgehan . Balban, 2007/05/23
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/05/23