Re: GPL violation ?

At 02:11 PM 5/9/2004, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 consider

Re: GPL violation ?

Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 07:54 AM 5/8/2004, you 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 anyo

Re: GPL violation ?

At 07:54 AM 5/8/2004, you wrote: >"Do not feed the trolls." Which troll is that? >I honestly did not expect any replies; I >hate these discussions as much as anybody. I will keep this brief. While I respect your right to voice your opinions here, the reason I responded was that I didn't w

Re: GPL violation ?

"Do not feed the trolls." I honestly did not expect any replies; I hate these discussions as much as anybody. I will keep this brief. Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Then your gripe is with the GPL. The point is, whether you agree > with all the tenants of the license or not, you cann

Re: GPL violation ?

Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I am sure you know, mentioning the GPL always starts a Rube > Goldberg reaction of interpretation from would-be lawyers, zealots, > or people who are unsatisfied with following the rules and assume > they should have more rights to the software t

Re: GPL violation ?

At 05:53 PM 5/7/2004, you wrote: >Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> As I am sure you know, mentioning the GPL always starts a Rube >> Goldberg reaction of interpretation from would-be lawyers, zealots, >> or people who are unsatisfied with following the rules and assume >> they sh

RE: GPL violation ?

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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: GPL violation ? > -Original Message- &g

Re: GPL violation ?

On May 6 19:02, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 06 May 2004 18:47 > > > You do get a T-shirt for filing the assignment, which is > > intended to cover > > all of your subsequent contributions. > > Ah, that explai

Re: GPL violation ?

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:50:39PM -0400, Robb, Sam wrote: >>You do get a T-shirt for filing the assignment, which is intended to >>cover all of your subsequent contributions. > >Uh-oh, Igor... you let the cat out of the bag. The goodwill of the >community is only worth so much, but a free T-shir

Re: GPL violation ?

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:50:39PM -0400, "Robb, Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You do get a T-shirt for filing the assignment, which is > > intended to cover all of your subsequent contributions. > > Uh-oh, Igor... you let the cat out of the bag. The goodwill > of the community is only wor

RE: GPL violation ?

> -Original Message- > From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 May 2004 18:47 > You do get a T-shirt for filing the assignment, which is > intended to cover > all of your subsequent contributions. Ah, that explains it. Yep, a t-shirt is definitely a "material con

RE: GPL violation ?

> You do get a T-shirt for filing the assignment, which is > intended to cover all of your subsequent contributions. Uh-oh, Igor... you let the cat out of the bag. The goodwill of the community is only worth so much, but a free T-shirt... now, that's *swag*. Now, excuse me, I've gotta go see ab

RE: GPL violation ?

On Thu, 6 May 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: 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 wo

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.

Re: GPL violation ?

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 so i could >have bought this up for nothing, thus passing the buck to to other >(hopefully) more knowl

RE: GPL violation ?

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > Sent: 06 May 2004 09:36 > > On May 6 10:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Thanks for the hint. I asked our layer to have a look. > > s/layer/lawyer > > Corinna That makes me think, if OSI had defined a seven-

Re: GPL violation ?

On May 6 10:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Thanks for the hint. I asked our layer to have a look. s/layer/lawyer Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Co-Project Leader mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info:

Re: GPL violation ?

On May 5 18:32, Vince Hoffman wrote: > Checkpoint appear to be distributing cygwin1.dll (as well as gzip and > gtar) without any obvious sources available. if fact of the 3 GPL utils > its the only that doesnt have its own copying notice (they do at least > provide a copy of the GPL.) > I havent c

Re: GPL violation ?

- Original Message - From: "Chris Herborth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Georgios Petasis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:12 PM Subject: Re: GPL violation ? > Georgios Petasis wrote: > > >>Including GPL'd code

Re: GPL violation ?

At 02:08 PM 5/5/2004, you wrote: >On Wed, 5 May 2004, Chris Herborth wrote: > >> Vince Hoffman wrote: >> >> > Checkpoint appear to be distributing cygwin1.dll (as well as gzip and >> > gtar) without any obvious sources available. if fact of the 3 GPL utils >> > its the only that doesnt have its o

Re: GPL violation ?

On Wed, 5 May 2004, Chris Herborth wrote: > Vince Hoffman wrote: > > > Checkpoint appear to be distributing cygwin1.dll (as well as gzip and > > gtar) without any obvious sources available. if fact of the 3 GPL utils > > its the only that doesnt have its own copying notice (they do at least > >

Re: GPL violation ?

Chris Herborth wrote: > Go read the GPL; you only need to provide sources to people who > _ask_for_them_. These days, you could probably just refer them to a web > page or something. Also, they have to make any _changes_ they've made to > the source available. s/a web page/a web page that you c

Re: GPL violation ?

Vince Hoffman wrote: Checkpoint appear to be distributing cygwin1.dll (as well as gzip and gtar) without any obvious sources available. if fact of the 3 GPL utils its the only that doesnt have its own copying notice (they do at least provide a copy of the GPL.) Go read the GPL; you only need to pro

RE: GPL Violation

OK, I published a new "alpha" site for Fetchmail for Win32... You can have a look if you've got time. Regards. -Message d'origine- De : Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : lundi 3 mars 2003 16:26 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : Poncet Sébastien Objet : Re

Re: GPL Violation

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 02:54:15PM +0100, Poncet S?bastien wrote: >Concerning http://spt.free.fr/fetchmail/ ... > >Allthought I understand what you mean, I got first very angry. I will >modify my page very soon and will only provide the modified sources. >Thanks for explanations. Yeah, think how

Re: GPL Violation

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 02:54:15PM +0100, Poncet Sébastien wrote: > Concerning http://spt.free.fr/fetchmail/ ... > > Allthought I understand what you mean, I got first very angry. I will > modify my page very soon and will only provide the modified sources. > Thanks for explanations. You are wel

RE: GPL Violation

nvoyé : samedi 1 mars 2003 06:35 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: GPL Violation On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:36:04PM -0500, Jon A. Lambert wrote: >If you provide download links to where one can download the software >does that not satisfy the following license provisio

Re: GPL Violation

Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 12:35 AM Subject: Re: GPL Violation > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:36:04PM -0500, Jon A. Lambert wrote: > >If you provide download links to where one can download the software > >does that not satisfy the following license p

Re: GPL Violation

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:36:04PM -0500, Jon A. Lambert wrote: >If you provide download links to where one can download the software >does that not satisfy the following license provision? The GPL doesn't say anything about your using someone else to satisfy your obligations. If *you* provide bi

Re: GPL Violation

Christopher Faylor wrote: -rw-a-- 2.2 ntf10366 b- stor 20-Jun-01 18:14 cygintl.dl_ So please, don't tell me I'm violating GPL Licenses ... :(( Sorry, but IMO you are. In case you need verification from someone with a redhat.com email address, you certainly do seem to be violating the

Re: GPL Violation

some sort of fixed network topology? - Original Message - From: "Jason Tishler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Cygwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 7:26 PM Subject: Re: GPL Violation > On S

Re: GPL Violation

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:26:06PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: >On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 01:01:43AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Responding to Jason Tishler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I'm sorry but I guess you did not read carefully what was written on >> my page http://spt.free.fr/fetchmail/. >

Re: GPL Violation

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 01:01:43AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Responding to Jason Tishler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm sorry but I guess you did not read carefully what was written on > my page http://spt.free.fr/fetchmail/. I did. > In fact, I don't provide cygwin*.dll, this is actually Red

RE: GPL Violation

cgf wrote: > The standalone DLL that we support is cygwin1.dll. We don't support > it for free, however, as much as people want us to. My mistake. Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. I was thinking about open-source projects (which in this case they have to be) posting binary releases f

Re: GPL Violation

On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:42:36PM -0500, Gerald S. Williams wrote: >I wrote: >> There is another side to this issue: the fact that RedHat is >> not in the business of supporting a standalone cygwin1.DLL, > ^^^ >I knew that I shouldn't have touched that one yet... > >I'm assuming t

RE: GPL Violation

I wrote: > There is another side to this issue: the fact that RedHat is > not in the business of supporting a standalone cygwin1.DLL, ^^^ I knew that I shouldn't have touched that one yet... I'm assuming that the standalone DLL that RedHat IS in the business of supporting (i.e.,

RE: GPL Violation

Robert Citek wrote: > Lawyer? Three years? We don't even have funds to buy pizza and beer let > alone a lawyer. We are not in the software distribution business. > That's what Red Hat is for. That is why I buy and recommend Red Hat. Disclaimer: IANAL RedHat uses the option whereby you can dow

Re: [rwcitek@alum.calberkeley.org: Re: GPL Violation]

Some comments: > If they want the source from the LUG, they should contact us about > prices. This is acceptable, but GPL 3b requires that you provide a *written* promise to that effect. IMHO it only needs to be sufficiently legal to be a binding contract - i.e. dated and authenticatable. How

Re: GPL Violation

> Lawyer? Three years? We don't even have funds to buy pizza and > beer let alone a lawyer. We are not in the software distribution > business. That's what Red Hat is for. That is why I buy and > recommend Red Hat. If RedHat distributed cygwin under GPL 3b, then you could redistribute that C

Re: GPL Violation

Hello DJ, At 06:10 PM 2/20/2003 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: >This is acceptable, but GPL 3b requires that you provide a *written* >promise to that effect. IMHO it only needs to be sufficiently legal >to be a binding contract - i.e. dated and authenticatable. How you >acheive that is up your lawyer

RE: GPL Violation

> Because there is no such beast. You can get some isolation relatively > easily but you can't get perfect interoperability between two > different versions of cygwin without quite a bit more work. Ah, it looks like I misunderstood the problem. My apologies. -Samrobb -- Unsubscribe info:

Re: GPL Violation

At 08:16 PM 2/20/2003 +0100, Andrew Markebo wrote: >/ Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >|> >|> I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run the >|> static binaries. >| >| If you provide the Cygwin DLL in binary form, you must provide >| the sources of that version as well. >

Re: GPL Violation

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 05:44, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Maybe I will make the DLL available but not advertise it for people like > you who just want a place to point people. That would mean that you would > remove cygwin1.dll from your distribution and then just point people to > this "secret" l

Re: GPL Violation

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:06:09PM -0500, Robb, Sam wrote: >So, why not offer versions of the dll that you *know* will not conflict >with an existing cygwin installation, or with other instances of the >stand-alone version of the cygwin dll? Because there is no such beast. You can get some isolat

Re: GPL Violation

/ Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> |> I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run the |> static binaries. | | If you provide the Cygwin DLL in binary form, you must provide | the sources of that version as well. Just a quick thought.. isn't it possible saying "I can send

RE: GPL Violation

> >Can't you provide a link to the latest released cygwin1.dll, what you > >do for snapshots ? > > I'll have to think about this. It's not a bad idea but given cygwin's > user base I suspect that it could lead to a lot more problems with > people who just download cygwin1.dll and then can't under

RE: GPL Violation

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please provide the Cygwin source that corresponds to the > > version of cygwin1.dll on the above web page at your > > earliest convenience. > > Not necessarily. See section 3 of the GPL (version 2) where other > alternatives are listed. Good point. You are not req

Re: GPL Violation

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:52:09PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>> I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run the >>> static binaries. > >> If you provide the Cygwin DLL in binary form, you must >> provide the sources of that version as well. > >Woul

Re: GPL Violation

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:52:09PM -0300, Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >> I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run the > >> static binaries. > > > If you provide the Cygwin DLL in binary form, you must > > provide the sources of that version as well.

Re: GPL Violation

On Thursday 20 Feb 03, Frédéric L. W. Meunier writes: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >> I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run the > >> static binaries. > > > If you provide the Cygwin DLL in binary form, you must > > provide the sources of that version as well. > > Would a link

Re: GPL Violation

Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run the >> static binaries. > If you provide the Cygwin DLL in binary form, you must > provide the sources of that version as well. Would a link to the latest version, say ftp://mirrors.rcn.net/mirrors/sources.redhat.

Re: GPL Violation

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:02:24PM -0300, Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote: > I bet I'm too. Well, sue me ? Can I provide a link ? Or what > about the Cygwin people making the latest released cygwin1.dll > available like the snapshots ? Then I'd just link to it. > > I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so

Re: GPL Violation

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote: > I bet I'm too. Well, sue me ? Can I provide a link ? Or what > about the Cygwin people making the latest released cygwin1.dll > available like the snapshots ? Then I'd just link to it. > > I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run

Re: GPL Violation

I bet I'm too. Well, sue me ? Can I provide a link ? Or what about the Cygwin people making the latest released cygwin1.dll available like the snapshots ? Then I'd just link to it. I make cygwin1.dll.bz2 available so that people can run the static binaries. I'm not allowed to transfer more than 1

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Andrew Markebo wrote: >Isn't a link to cygwin.com enough?? No. What happens if cygwin.com goes away? Then how do people get their source code? You don't rely on other people to satisfy the GPL obligation of providing source code for binaries that you d

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Andrew Markebo wrote: > Isn't a link to cygwin.com enough?? Not much mentioned around it, but > I saw it on the html-pages :-) Ahh under platforms.. No, it's not enough. The license is clear. If you provide a binary Cygwin you'll have to provide the so

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

Isn't a link to cygwin.com enough?? Not much mentioned around it, but I saw it on the html-pages :-) Ahh under platforms.. /Andy / Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:23:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: | > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:47:46PM +11

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:23:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:47:46PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > >My 2c. bring RMS in on this. > > Lets give them one more try? Corinna could you contact these two people > again? The vcdimager site offers the sources of the

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:47:46PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >My 2c. bring RMS in on this. Lets give them one more try? Corinna could you contact these two people again? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:47:46PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > My 2c. bring RMS in on this. Yeah, that could help... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. --

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

My 2c. bring RMS in on this. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 03:54:42AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > Good god. cdrdao is doing it, too. http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdrdao/ > > --Chuck > > Charles Wilson wrote: > > > It seems that VCDImager (http://www.vcdimager.org/) is distributing > > windows binaries that depend on cyg

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

Can you do a MD5 check on what the cygwin1.dll they distribute actually is - that is does it match a *real* 1.3.1-5 version? (Or is it forked) Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http:

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

And VCDEasy (http://www.vcdhelp.com/vcdeasy.htm) full version only -- by virtue of the fact that it includes cdrdao and vcdimager inside, and each of THOSE violates cygwin's GPL...VCDEasy.exe *itself* does not appear to be a cygwin app. Worse, the executables for vcdimager AND for cdrdao that

Re: GPL Violation - VCDImager

Good god. cdrdao is doing it, too. http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdrdao/ --Chuck Charles Wilson wrote: > It seems that VCDImager (http://www.vcdimager.org/) is distributing > windows binaries that depend on cygwin1.dll -- and include the dll in > the binary archive, but I can't find any s