Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:33:43 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Two GPL clarifications Message-ID: <20030328193343.GA22402@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i I've talked to Red Hat's lawyers. 1) The interpretation that just providing a link to the sources is adequate is incorrect so we are correct in advising people that they need to provide sources for the binaries that they provide. This is so much of a "well, duh" that I felt embarrassed asking the question, especially when the answer is clearly laid out in the GPL FAQ. 2) We should be trying to get people to adhere to the GPL whenever we are aware of a violation, if for no other reason than that we need to establish the precedent of enforcing our license. Again, a "well duh", but I thought it might help put some of this discussion to rest. The lawyer also went as far as to say that it doesn't take a lawyer to read a legal document and understand what it says. However, when you think about it, you really can't trust a lawyer's interpretation of a contract any more than you can mine. If lawyers were infallible then we wouldn't need judges and juries. So, you can continue the argument of "You don't know what you're talking about" all the way through the legal process until a verdict is rendered. Even then, there's no guaranteeing that the judge knows what *he's* talking about so we might need to appeal. My point is that if people aren't allowed to argue common sense interpretations and if we can't point to things like the FSF's GPL FAQ as an authority then we might as well not be discussing anything at all. For this mailing list, the interpretation of the GPL which we've been using for the last six years (since I've been following things) is the one that we will continue to use. I appreciate the efforts of people here who help to ensure that the GPL is enforced when they stumble over apparent transgressions. We should try to be non-confrontational when we bring issues to the attention of the well-meaning people who think they are open source advocates if they provide our binaries on their site. However, we still need to be insistent when it comes to helping them understand the facts of GPL life. For the record, I will block access here to anyone who advocates ignoring the GPL, anyone who stubbornly refuses to adhere to our GPL requirements, or anyone who rabidly insists that the FSF's interpretation of the GPL is incorrect. At the most such activities are counter to the goals of this project and at the least they're off-topic. An occasional thoughtful discussion on aspects of the GPL which are unclear would be slightly off topic here but I'm not going to slap anyone for raising such things. I like intellectual discussions about this kind of thing as long as people don't get too heated (is that possible with the GPL?) or too tedious. Be prepared for me to cc RMS in any discussions, though. However, if things to get out of hand, I'm perfectly willing to play the "off topic" card here since, clearly, this isn't the mailing list where important issues about the GPL will be decided. 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/