🚀 go-pugleaf

Craig Burley <burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>I would love to know the answers.  (I do hope you showed your professor
>more than just my post -- like the GPL itself, the FSF's posted
>interpretations, and such.)

We seem to be going in circles here.  A couple of posts ago, I wrote:
<Put another way, the way one becomes bound to GPL is by doing something
<that would infringe the copyright of some GPL'ed code if one did not have
<permission to do that thing.

You seemed to agree with that, for you responded:
>Good so far.

The point where I disagree with you, and where my professor agrees with
me is over whether or not what was distributed as part of RIPEM infringed
the copyright of gmp.  We say no, and hence we say that GPL and the FSF's
interpretations of GPL are not relevant here.

As far as I or my professor can tell, there is no concept of implicit
distribution in copyright law.  If the *actual* *files* distributed
as part of RIPEM do not contain copyrighted parts of gmp, then their
distribution is not an infringement.

--Tim Smith