This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: redistributing cygwin1.dll
- From: Elfyn McBratney <elfyn at ubertales dot co dot uk>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 21:43:45 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: Re: redistributing cygwin1.dll
On 13 May 2003, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> Christopher Faylor <cgf-RCM@cygwin.com> writes:
> > Actually, I made a mental bet with myself that this message would
> > draw you out. You're pretty predictable.
> I will try harder to behave randomly.
> > >(I think you mean "sophomoric". Yeah, I know, pointing out spelling
> > >errors is sophomoric.)
> > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
> I should not have said that. I apologize.
> It is somewhat ironic, though, that you responded to 2/3 of my message
> with nothing more than links to things like "appeal-to-ridicule.html".
> Too bad there's no "pot-kettle-black.html" on that site...
> > I think it is a truly absurd question but, considering the source,
> > it's to be expected. Why should enforcement of a license be
> > inconsistent?
> For the same reason enforcement of any law should be inconsistent: If
> the violator is doing more good than harm, they should be left alone.
> Do you ever jaywalk?
I hope you really don't believe that. Just because the scales may tip to
the right doesn't mean the left side should be completely disregarded.
> > I already provided an indication of why I did this the last time you
> > started spouting, before your attention wandered. I have no
> > intention of going into great detail again.
> This is all I can find in the archives regarding your reasons:
> One thing is clear: we have to try to enforce the licensing or we
> will weaken our position if someone is so recalcitrant that they
> refuse to honor it.
> And as I said the last time someone brought this up, that sounds like
> the rationale for trademark enforcement. I do not believe it applies
> to copyright. But I could be wrong; produce some evidence and I will
> concede this entire argument.
> > There is nothing specific about this situation which requires me to
> > explain my deepest motives.
> True. But someone less sympathetic than I might conclude that you
> merely derive pleasure from telling others what to do.
> At least, it seems like part of you does. Another part obviously
> enjoys giving his work away for free. You might be surprised to hear
> this, but that altruistic part of you has both my respect and my
> gratitude. I just wish it would express itself more broadly.
> > I think I've tried to be very consistent about insisting adherence
> > to the rules. The rules are not hard to understand and complying
> > with them is not hard.
> It is sufficiently hard that people ask about it and argue about it,
> Yes, you have been consistent. But consistency is not always a
> virtue. I am suggesting, politely this time, that you reconsider your
> position. I am suggesting that you focus less on "the rules" and more
> on the notions of benefit and harm. Is the world really worse off if
> someone distributes cygwin1.dll, for free, from their site?
> Of course, I realize that you are unlikely to take my suggestion. So
> perhaps I will just become distracted again.
> - Pat
If the GPL comes accross as silly to you, then how about doing the "right"
thing just so that the people that have *volunteered* hours, days, months
and years of their time to this great project get some, even little,
credit and recogntion for their fabulous work?
Your argument about good vs. bad is exactly the same.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html