Re: Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed

[Alexander Terekhov]

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).

http://www.answers.com/topic/meeting-of-the-minds

[...]

> You can't take somebody to court because of nonsense some third party
> chooses to spout.

The defendants are not "third parties" to each other in the context of
Wallace's action. They are alleged antitrust co-conspirators acting as 
parties to the GPL license agreement, and they are supposed to have 
consensus ad idem among them as a matter of law (or they would be 
engaged in massive copyright infringement on gigantic scale that would 
warrant criminal prosecution by law enforcement authorities). Recall 
that 

-----
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright 
Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) (“If a breach of contract 
(and a copyright license is just a type of contract) . . . ”); see also 
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 
(“Whether express or implied, a license is a contract").
-----

and that now the FSF itself is on record telling to a federal judge in 
court of law that the GPL "contract controls". Not only Welte (who has
established the contract status of the GPL in Germany, my what a hero) 
got it, so to speak.

regards,
alexander.