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

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/