This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GPL Violation

Thanks for your thoughful arguments.
However I am not the poster who is distributing fetchmail.
I do distribute a version of gdbm with full sources though.

J. Lambert

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf at redhat dot com>
To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
Cc: <jlsysinc at alltel dot net>
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 provision?
> The GPL doesn't say anything about your using someone else to satisfy
> your obligations.  If *you* provide binaries, then *you* provide sources.
> A download link to another site outside of your control does not satisfy
> the GPL.
> Believe me.  We know what we're doing.  We've been through this dance a
> hundred times before.  There seems to be some kind of common mindset
> where people think they don't have to provide sources and offer up
> exactly the same argument whenever they are told that they do.  They
> always point out that they love free software and they always try to
> find some clause in the GPL as a way to justify their actions.  You
> aren't saying anything we haven't heard before.
> You want more explanation?  What happens when we update the DLL and the
> sources for the version of the DLL that you're providing disappear from
>  How is the GPL satisfied in that scenario?  There's a
> binary without sources.  That sure sounds wrong to me.
> What happens if I decide that I hate cygwin and take down the web site?
> Where do your users get the sources for the binaries?
> >"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
> >access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access
> >to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of
> >the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy
> >the source along with the object code."
> >
> >If not what then does the above provision mean?  Or more specifically
> >just what does "place" mean?  The visible place or space such as web
> >page that offers links to source and binaries side by side, or some
> >physical constraint that they both must reside on the same domain, same
> >machine or *gasp* even same hard drive.  Is it not the spirit of
> >license of the license to offer the source up and not hide it?  Or is
> >it to demand some sort of fixed network topology?
> There is no spirit here.  The GPL is clear.  It exists for a purpose.
> If you are providing a binary, then you must provide the source.
> Please either provide the sources for the DLL on your web site or remove
> cygwin1.dll from your distribution.
> I'm not saying this because I'm mean.  I'm saying this because if we
> don't enforce the license then when some big company wants to distribute
> the DLL with their software offering and we say "You can't do that" they
> can point at you and say "Oh yeah?  Sorry but you allowed that guy over
> there to get away with it, so you obviously are not being consistent in
> your enforcement."  And, then we get to fight about it in court.
> Btw, I see that you do have the sources for fetchmail on your site so
> that part at least is good.
> cgf
> --
> Unsubscribe info:
> Bug reporting:
> Documentation:
> FAQ:         

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]