🚀 go-pugleaf

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Nick Kew wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/
>> 
>> Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license.
>> 
>> The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari.
>> Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror.  Which is KDE,
>> which is GPL.  So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>> under a BSD license, or so it would appear.
>> 
>> Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks
>> for their use of the code in Safari.  Did those terms include
>> permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms?
>> If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on
>> this particular software.
>
> <chuckles> 
>
> Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your 
> GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime.

Well, this is _gnu_.misc.discuss as well as uk.comp.os.linux, and
actual inclusion of lines of code is not a "derivative theory"
particular to the GNU project.  It's the standard for copyright pretty
much worldwide.

Now SCO is a different matter: they try pulling some sort of
contractual violation theory based on lines they don't even specify.
Now that's walking on thin air.

What code lines Nokia's browser is actually using will remain to be
seen.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum