They seem linked to me. Since cases like this are much harder to pull off under European law unless you can show actual copy-pasted code, this (like the WebKit move) looks like the symptoms of clueless non-technical management taking over and destroying the company by desperately trying to 'save it.'
I'm trying to say that they are linked through an underlying cause. Pornel says it much better than me in his comment though.
Jon's closing email is also quite telling:
Dear All,
It is with a heavy heart that I send this message. Next week will be my last
at Opera. It has become clear that The Board, Management and I do not share
the same values and we do not have the same opinions on how to keep evolving
Opera. As a result I have come to an agreement with the Board to end my time
at Opera. I feel the Board and Management is more quarterly focused than me.
I have always worked to build the company for the future. I believe the
foundation we have is very solid to build further upon.
I do believe strongly in Opera as a company, and in all of you working here.
Our products actually make a difference for a lot of people in the world, and
I wish you all the best of luck moving forward. I will be following the
company closely and rooting for you all.
Yours truly, Jon.
In that email he was probably referring to the direction the board wanted to take Opera in. There has been consistent speculation that Opera's board wanted to make Opera better suited for sale, and was looking forward to getting acquired by someone with deeper pockets. JvT of course, wanted to stay independent and continue to innovate.
They don't have to. The parent postulated that they are linked because they are both the result of non-technical management. Stating that this is not mentioned in the article is meaningless as a rebuttal.
Would be nice to have the postulate backed by something other than proximity in the poster's posting, and the poster's speculation, however.
While such wild speculation probably can't get you in trouble in the US of A, some European libel laws probably would require a little more than "seemed like it to me" as a reason to publish an assertion of an association.
This is an issue that I have with European libel laws. It's almost like they don't want you to be able to have an opinion and share it with people unless you feel you can back that assertion in court.
Don't worry. I'm European and I am certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that this won't get me anywhere near trouble under European libel laws. (Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as a 'European law')
First of all, European libel law requires a demonstrably false statement which 'seems to' by definition isn't.
Secondly, libel would be a civil offense so even if I were to be charged it would be the damage I caused to Opera at minimum (lowest value the judge deems to certain to have occurred.)
So basically only if I made a categorically false claim and it caused a demonstrable amount of loss (e.g. a contract with defined monetary value falling apart) would I be seriously affected by European libel law.
It seems at least tangentially related considering in that they probably wouldn't have sued Firefox if they had just decided to switch to the Gecko browser engine. (Or if Hansen had supposedly divulged trade secrets to the Chrome team).