David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
