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 Reply-To: Cygwin List Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.0.20040509150655.03272770@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 15:38:26 -0400 To: "Patrick J. LoPresti" , Cygwin List From: Larry Hall Subject: Re: GPL violation ? In-Reply-To: References: <20040505182418 DOT R31761 AT unsane DOT co DOT uk> <20040505185724 DOT C31875 AT unsane DOT co DOT uk> <20040506155542 DOT GC27589 AT coe DOT bosbc DOT com> <6 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 0 DOT 20040507223728 DOT 032780e8 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> <6 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 0 DOT 20040508120847 DOT 03272770 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Note-from-DJ: This may be spam At 02:11 PM 5/9/2004, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >Larry Hall writes: >> At 07:54 AM 5/8/2004, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >> >"Do not feed the trolls." >> >> >> Which troll is that? > >Oh, I just assumed that was what you considered me. > >> While I respect your right to voice your opinions here, the reason I >> responded was that I didn't want anyone to misconstrue your opinion >> as some policy of this list. Although I expect there wouldn't be >> too much confusion about your response, I thought it better to be >> clear than to leave something like this to question. > >Yeah, when I call a group's behavior "idiotic", lots of people assume >I speak for that group. Good thing you cleared that up. Nice work. Thanks. >> And if that's what works for you, that's what you should do. >> However, the previously stated stance for this list is to enforce >> the license without exception. > >Oh, I am quite familiar with your stance. It is what I was calling >"idiotic". It's not my stance. It is the approach this community takes to defending the GPL license as used by Cygwin. I accept this as being part of the Cygwin community. You clearly don't. >This is my last post on this thread. To summarize it briefly: > >You tried to justify your stance by claiming that you are not just >being assholes ("mean", whatever), but rather that it is a legal >necessity. I believe that is false, so I asked, "Where did you get >this idea?" You gave no answer, which pretty much speaks for itself. Actually, I did respond, though you trimmed it out of your reply: >>>Where did you get this idea? >>> >>>I am not a lawyer. But according to my friend who specializes in >>>intellectual property, selective enforcement does NOT weaken your >>>license. As copyright holder, you may grant different licenses to >>>different people or enforce a single license as whimsically as you >>>like. These are copyrights, not trademarks. >>> >>>Of course, if your own lawyer says differently, you should follow his >>>advice. >> >> >>And so that's what the folks on this list do. We're following the advice of the lawyers from Red Hat. Obviously, you have an axe to grind on this issue and always have (the history is in the email archives if anyone has the interest). What eludes me is why you chose to share your opinion on this subject again, considering that you claim to hate the discussion and think the group's behavior is "idiotic". That would seem to be a prescription for silence. We'll leave that issue as rhetorical. This thread serves no further purpose. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- 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/