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
From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <patl AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
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> <s5g8ytb7mgx DOT fsf AT egghead DOT curl DOT com> <20030513012322 DOT GA4077 AT redhat DOT com> <s5g3cjj7ae6 DOT fsf AT egghead DOT curl DOT com> <20030513060932 DOT GA5853 AT redhat DOT com>
Date: 13 May 2003 17:07:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <mit.lcs.mail.cygwin/20030513060932.GA5853@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <s5gy91a4ku7.fsf@egghead.curl.com>
Lines: 58
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 <cgf-rcm AT cygwin DOT com> writes:

> I said that I would research this GPL thing back in March and I sent
> the results of the research to the mailing list in a clearly
> labelled message.  I have no intention of doing research to find a
> URL.  I've verified that it was actually sent in my personal
> archives.

I assume you mean <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg02082.html>.
That still does not answer my main question: What good is achieved or
harm is avoided by strict enforcement of the GPL in cases like this?

The only credible response so far is, roughly, that you must enforce
your license or risk being unable to do so in the future.  I spoke to
an IP lawyer today (informally), and I am going to share what I
learned.  If this makes me a "troll" whom you want to ban from the
list, so be it.

The relevant legal principle is called the "Doctrine of Laches".  It
typically applies when a copyright holder sues for infringement after
a long period of ignoring a violation.  (For example, when Xerox sued
Apple and Microsoft over the desktop metaphor.)

But this doctrine is very unlikely to apply here.  We are not talking
about ignoring a specific violation and pursuing it later.  We are
talking about "selective enforcement" of a license; that is, enforcing
the license differently for different people committing different
violations.  And in general, selective enforcement does NOT diminish
your rights under copyright law.

It is obvious (to me, anyway) that not all violations of the GPL are
equal.  There is a big difference between:

  A) Redistributing a GPL binary as-is, for free, with clear
     indications of where the source can be obtained

and

  B) Taking GPL source code, modifying it, compiling it, and selling
     the result as a binary-only product

Treating these two cases identically is consistent, but it is a
foolish consistency.

It would be simple to craft language which would let you INFORMALLY
permit (A) without diminishing your ability to prosecute (B).  Of
course, this would require that you have some desire to distinguish
these cases, which obviously you do not.

 - Pat

P.S.  Do you believe you are capable of having a reasonable discussion
with someone who disagrees with you?  Do you believe you are capable
of having your mind changed by an argument?  I ask because I have
tried to write reasoned, intelligent messages; a little condescending,
perhaps, but no more so than the vast majority of your own.  Yet your
replies so far have amounted to little more than name calling
("troll", "boor", and so on).

--
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/