This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32(~7.5MB)
- From: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:02:39 -0500
- Subject: Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32(~7.5MB)
- References: <055001c2f197$65eb9990$2000000a@schlepptopp> <1048506223.912.118.camel@localhost> <014801c2f261$f0b553c0$2000000a@schlepptopp> <1048566137.914.209.camel@localhost>
To dig into this, this will cost me HOURS !
And how many hours do you think went into setup, cygwin, and all of the
Any tips for an easy solution ?
Uploading a few source tarballs to your website is a hell of lot easier
than recoding everything from scratch. Remember, the GPL says that if
you do not obey the license, ALL of your rights to use the software are
Completely new cygwin setup ,corresponding "striptease" and packaging ?
Come on - I have no time for just doing some satisfaction for "a sheet of paper".
That sheet of paper (and the tons of case law, the US Code, and
international treaties [Berne Convention]) are all that keeps Microsoft
from pulling an embrace-and-extend. It's all that prevents SCO from
taking our work, and republishing it as their own (closed source)
product -- (and maybe taking out a patent application and suing US for
infringement 20 years later!) Did you follow the Xvid vs. Sigma Designs
controversy? Sigma Designs stole the Xvid GPL'ed code and distributed it
without sources (and even changed authorship strings in the code itself,
it was later discovered). These things DO happen, and vigilant action
-- even gentle reminders to the "good guys" -- are part of the process
of keeping our weapons sharp for when we really need them.
If I REALLY have to do this, I will take my website down and make rockbox people
unhappy. This package was meant to make cygwin environment easier for the rockbox
people - nobody depends on that - it`s just for "comfort".
Yes. You Really Do Have To Do This. If obeying the law is too much
effort, then by all means take your package off the web. I imagine that
will be much easier than dealing with the legal hassles continued
infractions will bring (you ain't seen nuthin' 'til you've seen RMS go
after a GPL violation; not that he'd do so in this case -- you'd be at
the mercy of the Red Hat legal beagles.)
What would be the consequence, if i wouldn`t take care of your advice ? Will I get
Yes, probably via certified mail or from the friendly man in the County
Sherriff's uniform (that's how legal summons are delivered).
I respect the GPL - but I also think, there could be a little freedom for
Huh? You mean like, "Honestly, officer, 70mph doesn't really mean 7-0,
does it? 85mph is close enough, right? There's room for
If there WERE room for "interpretation" -- YOU don't get to choose the
interpretation. The GPL has already been fully explained and
interpreted by the people who wrote it -- see
It`s hard enough, that we have to fiddle around with ordinary and
absurd laws and licensing terms the rest of our life ....
Red herring. This is not hard at all; I do it all the time. When you do
scp my-binary.tar.gz my.web.site
you follow that immediately with
scp my-source.tar.gz my.web.site
And if, while developing, you find it difficult to keep track of sources
so that the above two steps are "hard" -- you really need a better way
to keep track of your development...
the GPL is what got you cygwin in the first place. Any interpretation
which conflicts with the GPL is not valid. If you don't like the
licence, return the product!
Actually, if you do not obey the GPL, you lose all rights to the product
and are required to destroy your copy. Technically, the loss-of-right
is permanent and irrevocable, unless "reinstatement" is authorized by
the copyright holder. But most copyright holders are not sticklers for
that -- they tend to automatically grant reinstatement as a matter of
course, as long as the offenders correct the problem. But this is
always and solely at the discretion of the copyright holder (in cygwin's
case, Red Hat).
There must be HOUNDREDTHOUSANDS of people violating the gpl!
That doesn't make it right. There are thousands of murders every year,
millions of thefts, ...
I take GPL serious and didn`t see, that this is a problem.
There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.
If I hear from you cygwin folks: take care of the gpl! If you don`t, we would like
you to remove your package - I really would accept this decision because you made a great
job with this software and you should decide - But I really think, there are also many
people, which don`t take it that serious, as you do.......
The GPL is meant to PROTECT OpenSource software - but I don`t see anything that i`m doing
bad things to OpenSource or to the Opensource Community - Far from it !
I'm not sure about the context here...but taking care of the GPL is
precisely what we're trying to do here. See, if Red Hat simply "lets
this one slide" -- then when Microsoft comes along and steals the code,
and buries it inside MSunixwin1.dll without releasing the source, Red
Hat has no legal leg to stand on. MS can simply point out
"discriminatory enforcement" and skate.
You don't want that, do you?
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html