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