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 From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: redistributing cygwin1.dll References: <20030512155928 DOT 0f98d16f DOT khali AT linux-fr DOT org> <20030512142302 DOT GB23680 AT redhat DOT com> <20030512171354 DOT 1f851221 DOT khali AT linux-fr DOT org> <20030512174720 DOT GE25507 AT redhat DOT com> <20030513012322 DOT GA4077 AT redhat DOT com> Date: 13 May 2003 00:12:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 72 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Christopher Faylor writes: > Actually, I made a mental bet with myself that this message would > draw you out. You're pretty predictable. I will try harder to behave randomly. > >(I think you mean "sophomoric". Yeah, I know, pointing out spelling > >errors is sophomoric.) > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html I should not have said that. I apologize. It is somewhat ironic, though, that you responded to 2/3 of my message with nothing more than links to things like "appeal-to-ridicule.html". Too bad there's no "pot-kettle-black.html" on that site... > I think it is a truly absurd question but, considering the source, > it's to be expected. Why should enforcement of a license be > inconsistent? For the same reason enforcement of any law should be inconsistent: If the violator is doing more good than harm, they should be left alone. Do you ever jaywalk? > I already provided an indication of why I did this the last time you > started spouting, before your attention wandered. I have no > intention of going into great detail again. This is all I can find in the archives regarding your reasons: One thing is clear: we have to try to enforce the licensing or we will weaken our position if someone is so recalcitrant that they refuse to honor it. And as I said the last time someone brought this up, that sounds like the rationale for trademark enforcement. I do not believe it applies to copyright. But I could be wrong; produce some evidence and I will concede this entire argument. > There is nothing specific about this situation which requires me to > explain my deepest motives. True. But someone less sympathetic than I might conclude that you merely derive pleasure from telling others what to do. At least, it seems like part of you does. Another part obviously enjoys giving his work away for free. You might be surprised to hear this, but that altruistic part of you has both my respect and my gratitude. I just wish it would express itself more broadly. > I think I've tried to be very consistent about insisting adherence > to the rules. The rules are not hard to understand and complying > with them is not hard. It is sufficiently hard that people ask about it and argue about it, repeatedly. Yes, you have been consistent. But consistency is not always a virtue. I am suggesting, politely this time, that you reconsider your position. I am suggesting that you focus less on "the rules" and more on the notions of benefit and harm. Is the world really worse off if someone distributes cygwin1.dll, for free, from their site? Of course, I realize that you are unlikely to take my suggestion. So perhaps I will just become distracted again. Cheers! - Pat -- 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/