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. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
