Grant Edwards wrote:
Sorry if I was a bit blunt, but I'm sick of people trying to weasle their way around a license by creative interpretation of the license terms when the licensors made their intentions as clear as possible.
Believe me, I share your frustration every time this issue comes up. However, I think it's best to follow Robert Heinlein's maxim:
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
And I think we can also replace the word "stupidity" with "ignorance" if you like.
It seems to me that "Luke" is confused and ignorant. He has shown no indication that he intends to write proprietary software using Qt.
In any case, he may be right, and the FSF, Trolltech, and you could all be wrong. Your intention when you use the GPL may be moot if a judge determines that the text itself and copyright law does not support your interpretation.
I think that it is almost always best to obey the intentions of the copyright holder and to ask for clarification when it is unclear. On the other hand, if the copyright holder is *clearly* off-base with his interpretation (and to me this would require actual case law, not just the opinion of a lawyer), then I might consider disregarding the author's interpretation and going with what case law and my lawyer suggests. I don't believe that this situation holds with respect to this issue, of course.
-- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
