Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Tue, 13 May 2003 13:07:45 -0400
From:	Jim Drash <JDrash AT eesus DOT jnj DOT com>
X-X-Sender:	JDrash AT WEESUSCI9812517 DOT eesus DOT na DOT jnj DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: redistribution cygwin1.dll
Message-ID:	<Pine.CYG.4.53.0305131301490.844@WEESUSCI9812517.eesus.na.jnj.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0

No I am not thinking trademark. Copyright law is based upon contract law.
So there is legal "detriment" on both sides.  Failure to enforce
provisions of a contact can make that contract voidible <sp?>.

I am very tied of this debate.  The simple thing is to follow the details
of the GPL (or whatever licenses applies) regardless of how "silly"
anyone thinks it is.

It is just so trivial for developers to comply and debates as to why one
should not have to comply merely waste everyone's time and seem to make
cgf more mean <rofl>

Jim Drash


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -