[Development] qt-jambi-interest at qt.nokia.com

[Darryl Miles]

Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 11 de dezembro de 2012 01.06.56, Darryl Miles wrote:
>> I think all of the other matters can be worked through except for the
>> domain name issue and if that has to be changed (by renaming the
>> project) then all the other other issues become moot.
>>
>> I can not think why Nokia would still want to keep it, so maybe simply
>> it was never asked/requested to be transferred, so maybe as part of me
>> making contact with Qt Project legal team.  Someone can at least ask the
>> question at Nokia with the right people who could resolve the matter, so
>> far I feel like we've always been talking to the wrong people.  Maybe I
>> should speak with Digia sales director and convince them of all the
>> money they might lose hehe.
>
> I think you're confusing again the Qt Project with Digia.

You had stated the "Qt Project legal team" consists of one person in the 
legal department at Digia.

So in corresponding with this person both hats can be addressed.

I don't think I am confused.  All the references to Digia have first 
been brought up by you, my references to Digia are then in support of a 
reply to your comments referencing Digia.

For the avoidance of doubt I still wish to correspond with the Qt 
Project legal team (from the Qt Project point of view).


I understand correctly the matters you describe that reference Digia, 
this thread has only confirmed my understanding not changed it.



> The Qt Project has nothing to do with the deal between Digia and Nokia that
> concluded in the transfer of IP and the people from one company to the other.
> The only thing that touches the project is that the CLA now refers to Digia,
> not Nokia.
>
> If you want Digia to obtain the rights to Qt Jambi's IP, you need to contact
> Digia, not the Qt Project Legal contact.

Yes indeed.  So you may park the Digia angle of this discussion between 
us (leave that one with me).



>> I would think it is in everyone's future interest to obtain it, from my
>> point of view ideally to have Qt Project Hosting Foundation be the new
>> owner.  Then some agreement in place to re-delegate it as necessary.
>
> That's unlikely to happen. The Hosting Foundation does hosting. It does not
> own any IP.

Is the organization termed "Qt Project" a single entity and is "The 
Hosting Foundation" (Qt Project Hosting; is the name I see in the footer 
of website) that same entity.

I am asking here if the Qt Project is actually a collection of entities 
or a single entity that is referred to by different names at different 
times.



>>>> There is also the angle on continuing to use trolltech.com references
>>>> within the code base, I see there is a QTBUG about stopping doing that
>>>> in Qt, is there a legal basis this needs to be done ?
>>>
>>> The trolltech.com domain name did not transfer. Given the task and the
>>> domain, I would guess that the Qt Project no longer has any rights to it.
>>> I would recommend you rename the Java packages as soon as feasible.
>>>
>
>> But I take from your comments there isn't a legal reason to change the
>> name more a social reason.
>
> No, quite to the contrary: there seems to be legal reason to change. The
> Trolltech name stayed with Nokia (apparently) and we should stop using it.

Ok you didn't provide that stance in your comment before so it is good 
you clarified it.


There is no objection to removing the ('trolltech') name from the Qt 
Jambi project in place of a new name.  [This relates to signs, symbols 
and namespace not copyright notices, which I believe all reference Nokia 
anyway]

To be clear the Qt Jambi project is not claiming any rights to the 
'trolltech' name.  It just happens to have the term in the source code 
of the project, it was placed there by representatives of Trolltech and 
then Trolltech granted copying and redistribution rights.  As a 
discussion point (for arguments sake) I find it hard to accept there is 
a future legal concern to be had, it would make a funny day in court.

Hence I don't myself see it as an action the Qt Jambi project _must_ 
legally take even if Nokia continue to retain the name.  The drive to 
change it comes from improving the Qt Jambi project not a legal concern; 
the outcome the same.



Thanks for your correspondence

Darryl