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: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:09:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael A Chase <mchase AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
Subject: Re: Advocacy
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <Mahogany-0.64.2-3731-20030303-140936.00@ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: INLINE
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0303031236470 DOT 22573-100000 AT gremlin DOT fruitbat DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0303031236470.22573-100000@gremlin.fruitbat.org>

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:22:16 -0800 (PST) "Peter A. Castro" <doctor AT fruitbat DOT org> wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:

>>> I feel that you should review their responses to you, determine if they
>>> are truely striking out at you because of your companies policies, and
>>> respond back.  Yes, email them back!  Make them put their money where
>>> their mouths are and justify their complaints.  Anyone who really
>>> participates on this list will tell you that they back up every word with
>>> something stronger than just fist waving.  If they can't or won't, then
>>> just ignore them.
>>
>> As someone who publicly commented on this ludicrous disclaimer, let me just
>> note that I fully understand that people who post to the list have no
> 
> Ah ha!  Soooo, it was you! You, CGF, who caused Sheridan such strife! :)
> 
>> control over the disclaimers.  However, if you take them at face value
>> you could easily come to the conclusion that the sender could be in violation
>> of company policy or, worse, could be assuming that you are implicitly
>> accepting their policies.

Or we are simply demonstrating that they have no legal standing.
It seems similar to the hassle Chris goes through to make sure
the Cygwin license stays enforceable except no one is following up.

> His companies disclaimer was actually quite sparse, compared with some of
> the people who post from the really big companies, or from some of the
> government facilities (at least, those who are *allowed* to post :).  I
> am curious, though.  Was it just the general sense of the disclaimer that
> caused you to comment, or was there something in particular in it that
> tweeked you? 

What got me was that all that verbiage covers about as much of the
company's backside as Gypsy Rose Lee's costume.  Probably less, since
they often go on outgoing mail that has wide distribution so it never
gets enforced.  I suspect the ones mandating those things have their
secretary read all their email so they never see them.

-- 
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.


--
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/