Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe > > > here is the *non-interesting* one? > > > Well, it's the one that matters. You want to rephrase it, and yet the > > phrasing matters. > > I don't want to rephrase anything. In fact I've tried hard to go with > your phrasing each time. However, I see that it is impossible to get > you to understand what I'm trying to say, so I'll stop trying here.
I think I *do* understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that the distinction you are trying to raise is orthogonal to the legal one, which always looks to your intention. So that there is no way to evade the GPL by doing things that happen to be individually OK, and in sum, just happen to get around the license. They only way to do this is if it is *really* an accident; not as something you plan on, since that would, ipso facto, be an intention.
