I don't know, but IIRC IBM, SCO, AT&T as well as others in said case were US companies. And US law only works only in US (so far). So that is really bad example.

I also think that issue is ridiculous but not for that reason.

And, btw, you note about "stellarium on mobile" are out of touch with reality. Search for "stellarium" in iTunes and be enlightened.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Reaves, Timothy <treaves@silverfieldstech.com> wrote:
It's not that easy.

A good deal of the SCO lawsuit against IBM - and AT&T against a lot of companies - was that once you have viewed code, you can not come up with an alternative implementation that does not violate licensing/copyright law.  So if you are really going to go through with this, get legal advice.

Overall, I think this is ridiculous.  Given the sad, slow state of Stellarium on the desktop, that anyone would want to go through this much work to be ble to get out a commercial version for a Qt hand-held is just amazing to me.  Especially when you look at the state of the software already out there for the other mobile platforms.

But hey, everyone has to have a cause.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:44 AM, H <hans@lambermont.dyndns.org> wrote:
Fabien Ch?reau wrote on 20100913:
>  - use the powerful git blame to find out which lines were coded by
> Rob.
> At the end, we end up with the attached file counting 404 lines.

If we all agree this is the disputed contribution then we should bluntly
remove it from the repository head and let it grow back in an
unencumbered form.

If not we risk losing our main dev's interest in the project IMO.

What say you ?

-- Hans