[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:14:14 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
> >> Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
> >
> > Both Novell and Red Hat are *parties* to the agreement with Trolltech
> > covering Qt under the GPL (without that agreement they would have no
> > rights to Qt).
> Uh, they _have_ no rights to Qt.  They have _license_ to distribute Qt
> under the GPL, but not because of any agreement or understanding.

You never learn (recall Hollaar's responses to your nonsense), and just 
got it wrong as usual. They got a bunch of rights (by accepting the GPL 
license contract) to reproduce Qt, make derivatives, etc. The right to 
distribute copies of Qt (and its derivative works) is statutory (17 USC 
109) for all owners of lawfully made copies -- it doesn't need a 
license. 17 USC 106(3) ("distribute copies") doesn't come into play 
unless there's infringement of 17 USC 106(1) and/or 17 USC 106(2).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]