Re: Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> 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.

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

Does not apply.  Heeding a license does not imply "mutual agreement"
because it does not influence the licensor's decision.  Things would
be different if they had paid Trolltech for releasing Qt under the
GPL.  But they still would not be responsible for Trolltech's
interpretation of the GPL.

> [...]
>
>> 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.

Well, just because Wallace is a loonie does not mean that the court
have to follow his lead.

> 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).

Nonsense.  They heed each other's licenses.  That does not make them
co-conspirators any more than the average Windows user is a
co-conspiritor of Microsoft when he chooses to to heed the EULA.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum