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 Message-ID: From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: GPL violation ? Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 08:52:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes Though IANAL, I would suggest that the "exchange of something of value" is the ability to have one's code included in in cygwin as distributed via setup. (Thus, the thing of value is a service, not an object.) One might reasonably suppose that the contributor wants cygwin to have the functionality that s/he is contributing. In this analysis, what one gives (the code) is commensurate in scope with what gets (the inclusion of the code). And even if one is contributing functionality that one will not oneself use, arguably the psychological rewards and practical benefits of having code included in the standard release, as opposed to a private build, to compensate for the transfer of copyright on the code. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Korn Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 1:33 PM To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: GPL violation ? > -----Original Message----- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor > Sent: 06 May 2004 16:56 > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:08:59PM +0100, Vince Hoffman wrote: > >This comes up on here every now and then and if i didnt > think it was a > >possible issue i wouldnt have brought it up. Mind you IANAL http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#YANALATEYHSMBSI :) lol! However, the real point I wanted to mention is that http://cygwin.com/assign.txt seems almost certain to be invalid under UK law, and quite possibly under US law too. You can't have a contract without an exchange of something of value. Hence the line about "For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which I acknowledge". But *what* consideration? AFAICS, since nobody's ever been paid so much as a wooden nickel for their cygwin contributions, every claim to have been in receipt of such consideration is false, and so every single one of the supposed contracts is currently in breach and therefore none of the assignments are valid. I'm slightly alarmed to notice this and wonder what the RH legal team have to say about it? I think the RH lawyers may need to spend some time sending people peppercorns through the post, along with a letter apologising for the late payment! [ Here are some references for anyone who wants to research this themselves a bit: http://www.google.com/search?q=peppercorn+rent+contract+validity&hl=en&lr=&i e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sufficiency+of+ex change+contract+validity+peppercorn http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/c/consideration.html An illusory promise, or one which the promisor actually has no obligation to keep, does not count as consideration. The promise must be real and unconditional. http://law.wustl.edu/Organizations/SBA/Outlines/Contracts%20-%20OUTLINEBIG.h tm b. Saying there is consideration is not consideration, neither is a seal. Nominal consideration which means nothing is not consideration. ] cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/