Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Unfriendly person violating GPL at http://www.cmdtools.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:53:36 +1000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5EC7@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Joerg Schilling" <schilling AT fokus DOT gmd DOT de>, <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3MMrdH13235



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joerg Schilling [mailto:schilling AT fokus DOT gmd DOT de] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 1:18 AM
> To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Unfriendly person violating GPL at http://www.cmdtools.com/
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> a few hours ago, I send a friendly mail to Dave Navarro 
> <dave AT basicguru DOT com> telling him that he is violating GPL 
> because he publishes a cdrtool binary package (including 
> Cygwin) without providing source at the same place.
> 
> I also told him that he may either remove the binaries or add sources.
> 
> The result is a very unfriendly statement on hist web site. 
> Do you have 
> a nice idea how to tell him that he just has been informed about a 
> violation of the license?

Well, I'd say he miinterpreted what you wrote. However, CDRtools aren't
the only thing there that is an issue. A quick glance shows 
* wget (no source, no mention of the right to obtain source/GPL)
* lots of stuff from sysinternals (IIRC this is personal use only - no
redistribution clause)

So I think another civil attempt would be in order, followed up by a
letter to the fsf about the wget (if the guy doesn't start to listen).

Rob