Re: Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > weimingzhi@gmail.com wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> this is obviously not what Trolltech intended
>> >
>> > Trolltech's "intentions" is smoking gun stuff to invalidate the
>> > whole scheme once and for all. I still wonder why Wallace didn't
>> > name Trolltech, Inc., Palo Alto as a defendant in his action
>> > (which is currently under appeal) right from the beginning...
>> 
>> Because Trolltech does not compete with his alleged operating
>> business
>
> His alleged operating system is in competition with
> Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Red Hat and Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Novell,
> acording to his complaint.  And both these brands of
> Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux include Qt under the GPL license agreement he is
> complaining about, IIRC.

But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.  And nothing
Wallace puts forward of his _own_ doing appears to compete with Qt.
And he'd be free to bundle Qt with his own offer if he wanted to.

> [...]
>
>>                                              And IBM, RedHat and the
>> FSF [dak meant Novell] can hardly be blamed for the fantasies of 
>> Trolltech.
>
> Well, well, well. It would be fun see IBM, RedHat and Novell telling 
> the court to not take official Trolltech's statements seriously (so to 
> speak), to begin with. No?

No.  Definitely no.  Nobody takes your official statements seriously,
either, and definitely should not.

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

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum