Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
> However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims
> that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the
> GPL says "section of"). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on
> those services: A very different thing.
Qt is part of the derived work. It is linked to it and the work A does not
function without it. It is also not a public API and your message to Preston
concerning possible legal action against harmony makes it clear you regard
the item as actively protected IPR not an open API
Reply to: