Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:01:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. If an alternate implementation from mine exists
> 2. and is available for the user to run with your application on that platform
> 3. and the user actually has to have it to run your application.
>
> Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of
> no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed
> product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then
> you ship that application with the _intent_ that the user combine it with my
> library to run it, which is demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't do useful
> work any other way or you haven't shipped an alternative library to that same
> user. I think I'd have a legitimate complaint.
Bruce: Are you shure that "intent" has any legal meaning?
In U.S. law, ``intent'' has a legal meaning in a number of contexts.
For example, the difference between manslaughter and homicide is one
of intent.
I believe that in the copyright arena, intent goes by names such as
``contributory infringement.''
Ian
