Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/05/12/04:59:36
Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com> writes:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 09:52:33PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:56:21PM -0500, DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
>>>> For the Cygwin folks, it is really a good idea to have the preferred
>>>> usage of the logo documented in an easily accessible location. This
>>>> long, drawn out, emotional thread has shown that nobody really knows
>>>> how someone can legally use the logo.
>>>
>>> There is only one person here who works at Red Hat, they are not a
>>> lawyer and, the last I knew, had no way to gain definitive statements
>>> from Red Hat counsel.
>>>
>>> So, again, I think I'm consistent in noting that if anyone is planning
>>> to use the Cygwin logo or the Cygwin name or has questions about
>>> licensing then it is in their best interests to make sure that Red Hat
>>> officially agrees with the usage. If they can get a general assurance
>>> from Red Hat then we'll be more than happy to put it on the web site. I
>>> suspect that nobody would be willing to provide official carte blanche
>>> usage suitable for this type of purpose but IANetc.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Maybe something like that is what should go in the FAQ.
>>
>>Maybe it should but then again, since this is the first time I recall in
>>at least 12 years that this issue has come up on the list, I'm not sure it
>>qualifies as an FAQ. Maybe it could go under the contributor's guide or
>>the cygwin-license list description. Or maybe it needs it's own, more
>>visible category.
>
> I was thinking of a general "I want to distribute Cygwin is it ok to
> XYZ?" section. Questions of that nature come up all of the time.
Yes, I really would appreciate that. The logo question, the question
of how to use the word "Cygwin" when advertising or labeling the
distribution and how to handle this if one would want to distribute
modified or extent ed copies
A clear policy, even if restrictive, is certainly to be preferred to
no policy in my opinion.
Of course I'd hope to whatever is published in the FAQ to have some
legally binding power (or alternatively refer to a finite and
preferably painless way to get a legally binding statement, e.g. a
suitable contact at Redhat). I'm saying that because the events and
comments I triggered here, seemed to imply that the Cygwin project as
such is no legal entity, not in control itself of all relevant rights
and members of the project, regardless of their role and position in
the project, could not speak up in legal matters as this -- and that
all that would have to come from Redhat.
But thanks for the constructive attitude now.
Regards -- Markus
>
> cgf
>
> --
> 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/
--
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 -