On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:23:26PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > 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. > > But I'm not sure how a binary can infringe on its own.
If it's not an unlicensed derivative work (which it isn't, in the case of Quagga etc.; IANAL), it can't. But note that in principle the creation of derivative works can be infringement even if they are not distributed, and I haven't dug through case law to see exactly how far 17 USC 117 can be stretched from run-time use to local builds. Note also the common-law principle (said to have equivalents in other legal systems) that you're permitted to do anything that you have to in order to make routine use of something that you have legitimately acquired from someone who was legally in a position to offer you that permission. There's lots of case law on that with respect to EULAs, implied patent licenses, etc. > > one reason why we handle DJB's works with such care (see > > daemontools-installer). > > I'm not sure if you used this as an example because you know that I'm the > maintainer of that package, but yes, I am well aware of this issue. Actually, I didn't make that connection, although I have had occasion to use that package myself, and to point it out to a lawyer as something to be aware of. That's amusing. Cheers, - Michael
