Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/03/25/13:36:40
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:36:15PM -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> writes:
>
>> FWIW: I am not a lawyer.
>
>And therefore, everything you have said may be safely ignored.
>
>Until this alleged GPL violator receives a "cease and desist" order
>from an attorney, he has no reason to even consider modifying his
>behavior. (Except to be polite, of course. But at this point, he has
>little reason to want to be polite. And providing a simple link to
>the Cygwin sources is nice enough to begin with.)
Just to be clear: Providing a simple link to the Cygwin sources is not
adequate.
If this truly has to descend to the level of having lawyers send
something, I can do that. I think that everyone would prefer for that
not to happen, however.
>I really love it when non-lawyers talk about law, because it's
>hilarious.
Rather than have a lawyer constantly scanning the list and sending
people cease and desist orders, it makes sense for knowledgeable people
like Chuck, Robert, Larry, Corinna, DJ, and myself (among others) to
answer these kind of questions. We should be trying to make sure that
people adhere to the GPL as we understand it. Having communicated with
lawyers and RMS about the GPL, I don't see anything amiss in the advice
that is being given.
One thing is clear: we have to try to enforce the licensing or we will
weaken our position if someone is so recalcitrant that they refuse to
honor it. If we just turn a blind eye to what we think are violations
and allow people to use the software any way they feel like it (because
they are *always* such strong advocates of open source) then we aren't
doing a service to cygwin or the GPL.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -