[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:39:13 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> 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.

They got _permission_.  You get _rights_ in exchange for some
consideration (usually money), or because they are guaranteed by some
law.  But there are no rights associated with software you happened to
come across somewhere.

> 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.

Wrong.  They can pass on a "lawfully made" copy, but can't create
additional copies without permission.  And "lawfully made" already
requires that there has been some arrangement made under which they
get the copy.  And "download pursuant to GPL" is such an arrangement.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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