On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
