Re: Cygwin OpenSSH GPL Violation?

On Jun 8 21:58, Karl M wrote: > > http://www.neophob.com/serendipity/ > > Hi All... > > I just ran across this site and didn't find any source code offered. > > Is this a known site? Now it is. I contacted the guy to add the sources to the site. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen

Cygwin OpenSSH GPL Violation?

http://www.neophob.com/serendipity/ Hi All... I just ran across this site and didn't find any source code offered. Is this a known site? Thanks, ...Karl _ Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.

Re: Mirrors in GPL violation? + Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.

Hi Dave, Markus E.L. writes: > "DaveKorn" writes: Rereading parts of the thread and your reply, I fear it happens again: Lot's of reproaches in your's and Barry's replys, accusations of stuff _I_ never wrote, down to questioning the legitimacy of addressing features of any kind in any softwa

Re: Mirrors in GPL violation? + Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.

"DaveKorn" writes: > On 15 May 2007 00:24, Markus E.L. wrote: > >> is concerned with questions of trust and >> endorsement > > That's the underlying source of your error right there: a false assumption. So Alex has been concerned with different questions? My apologies if I read him wrong ther

RE: Mirrors in GPL violation? + Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.

On 15 May 2007 00:24, Markus E.L. wrote: > is concerned with questions of trust and > endorsement That's the underlying source of your error right there: a false assumption. > (like: cygwin.com lists the mirrors as source of the > software, then declines any responsibility for the actual cont

Mirrors in GPL violation? + Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.

"Buchbinder,Barry(NIH/NIAID)[E]" writes: Barry, my and (AFAI understand) Alex' problem is not with using setup - I for my part am quite comfortable with how I start setup. Alex (in my humble opinion rightly) is concerned with questions of trust and endorsement (like: cygwin.com lists the mirror

Re: YA GPL Violation (was Re: Rebase dlls not from cygwin)

On Jun 7 08:02, Jason Tishler wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 07:47:13AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:06:29PM +0200, Hermann Klocker wrote: > > > I try to run Dakota 3.3 (from > > > http://endo.sandia.gov/DAKOTA/licensing/release/Dakota_3_3.cygwin.tar.gz) > > AFAIC

YA GPL Violation (was Re: Rebase dlls not from cygwin)

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 07:47:13AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:06:29PM +0200, Hermann Klocker wrote: > > I try to run Dakota 3.3 (from > > http://endo.sandia.gov/DAKOTA/licensing/release/Dakota_3_3.cygwin.tar.gz) AFAICT, the above is distributing cygwin1.dll without t

Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

You misunderstand the GPL. The GPL does not grant you a right to the source code, it creates a responsibility for them to give your the source code. I know it sounds like the same thing, but it isn't. If you had a legal right to the source code, you could then sue them for a copy. But since ins

Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

Dave Korn schrieb: -Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Reini Urban Sent: 22 October 2004 17:44 Dave Korn schrieb: Found: .\rateless-tunnel.exe rateless-tunnel.exe C:\cygwin\bin\cygwin1.dll C:\WINDOWS\System32\ADVAPI32.DLL C:\WINDOWS\System32\ntdll.dll C:\WINDOW

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Reini Urban > Sent: 22 October 2004 17:44 > Dave Korn schrieb: > > Found: .\rateless-tunnel.exe > > rateless-tunnel.exe > > C:\cygwin\bin\cygwin1.dll > > C:\WINDOWS\System32\ADVAPI32.DLL > > C:\WINDOWS\System32\ntdll.dll >

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Hughes, Bill > Sent: 22 October 2004 17:40 > Dave Korn wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Hughes, Bill > ..snip.. > >> Out of curiosity, what makes you think they are using cygwin code? > > > >

Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

Dave Korn schrieb: Found: .\rateless-tunnel.exe rateless-tunnel.exe C:\cygwin\bin\cygwin1.dll C:\WINDOWS\System32\ADVAPI32.DLL C:\WINDOWS\System32\ntdll.dll C:\WINDOWS\System32\KERNEL32.dll C:\WINDOWS\System32\RPCRT4.dll [EMAIL PROTECTED] /win/c/downloads/rateless> LOL. T

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

Dave Korn wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Hughes, Bill ..snip.. >> Out of curiosity, what makes you think they are using cygwin code? > > Probably the link on the download page that says > "Precompiled binaries for cygwin on windows". They may have changed

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Hughes, Bill > Sent: 22 October 2004 17:03 > To: 'cygwin > Subject: RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation? > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > Does anyone know if there is source code available for the

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

Christopher Faylor wrote: > Does anyone know if there is source code available for the binary > downloads from ? > > I've sent a message requesting that they provide source code for their > programs but it seems like this is YA case of someone > assuming that they > get to us

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Hannu E K Nevalainen > Sent: 22 October 2004 16:15 > >> -Original Message- > >> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Doctor Bill > >> Sent: 22 October 2004 15:50 > >> To: cygwin > &g

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Doctor Bill >> Sent: 22 October 2004 15:50 >> To: cygwin >> Subject: Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation? >> >> It looks like it is up to RedHat lawyers to decid

RE: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Doctor Bill > Sent: 22 October 2004 15:50 > To: cygwin > Subject: Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation? > > It looks like it is up to RedHat lawyers to decide if they wish to > enforce their license. >

Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

It looks like it is up to RedHat lawyers to decide if they wish to enforce their license. Bill On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:54:32 +0300, Jani Tiainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:59:12PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > >>Does anyone know

Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:59:12PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: Does anyone know if there is source code available for the binary downloads from ? I've sent a message requesting that they provide source code for their programs but it seems like th

Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:59:12PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Does anyone know if there is source code available for the binary >downloads from ? > >I've sent a message requesting that they provide source code for their >programs but it seems like this is YA case of som

http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

Does anyone know if there is source code available for the binary downloads from ? I've sent a message requesting that they provide source code for their programs but it seems like this is YA case of someone assuming that they get to use cygwin without paying attention to the

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

GPL violation ?

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 contacted them about this as i could be in error

Re: spell and nano (was reply to cgf about gpl violation)

On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 11:38:44PM +, Gareth Pearce wrote: > >>>Regards, >>>Gareth - cygwin nano packager. >>>(PS: Waiting for cgf's supprised look - since nano-devel's Chris complied >>>immediately - or at least is trying too...) >> >>I'm very gratified at the response and indicated as much in

spell and nano (was reply to cgf about gpl violation)

(crossing to cygwin incase it might inspire someone) > use nano; for the same reason the (webpage) nano binary uses PDcurses rather than > ncurses so no termcap files are needed. I think the cygwin provided > version of nano is far superior as things like spell check would > actually work, This wo

Re: Fwd: Re: Another GPL violation: Re:Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 02:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > nobody is perfect ;) > now lets be friends again and make the world a better place with OpenSource > Software - ok ? > :) Yep. Rob -- GPG key available at: . signature.asc Description: This

Re: Possible GPL Violation

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 04:07:17AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >Perhaps a http://cygwin.com/goldstars/ web page is in order ;-) No, I'm > >only kidding... > > Hmmm > cgf Yeah. I'm very tempted too... :-) Igor --

Fwd: Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

ct: Re: Another GPL violation: Re: MinimalisticBuild-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB) > On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 20:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > On the rockbox mailinglist i used a VALID email address > > for_spam seemed invalid at first glance - it *appe

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: MinimalisticBuild-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 20:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On the rockbox mailinglist i used a VALID email address for_spam seemed invalid at first glance - it *appears* to be a black hole address. > - and on my win32 > sdk page is a VALID > email adress, too. I didn't see that. I stumbled a

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

>The problem here is that you were politely asked to stop doing something >and your response was: >1) I want to use the software the way I want to use it. It's too hard >to use it any other way. >2) You shouldn't be bothering me because I love open source. >3) Everybody else is doing it. >Thes

Re: Possible GPL Violation

> On 3/27/2003 5:33 AM, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > > I am sending you this e-mail because I was given your URL in passing, and > > found that you are distributing Cygwin amongst other Cygwin-linked utilities > > , but there is no URL for the > > corresponding sour

Re: Possible GPL Violation

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:17:47PM -0600, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: >While I agree, doesn't it make more sense to contact people off-list >first? If this was [EMAIL PROTECTED] or something I'd understand, but really >other than us being fellow Cygwin users what does it have to do with >the cyg

Re: Possible GPL Violation

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:55:22PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:35:33AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > > >>I am sending you this e-mail because I was given your URL in passing, > > >>and found that you are distributing Cygwin amongst other Cygwin-linked > > >>u

Re: Possible GPL Violation

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:55:22PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:35:33AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >>I am sending you this e-mail because I was given your URL in passing, > >>and found that you are distributing Cygwin amongst other Cygwin-linked > >>utilities <

Re: Possible GPL Violation

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 04:07:17AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >Perhaps a http://cygwin.com/goldstars/ web page is in order ;-) No, I'm only >kidding... Hmmm cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Do

Re: Possible GPL Violation

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:35:33AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >>I am sending you this e-mail because I was given your URL in passing, > >>and found that you are distributing Cygwin amongst other Cygwin-linked > >>utilities , but there is no URL > >>for th

Re: Possible GPL Violation

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:35:33AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >>I am sending you this e-mail because I was given your URL in passing, >>and found that you are distributing Cygwin amongst other Cygwin-linked >>utilities , but there is no URL >>for the correspo

Re: Possible GPL Violation

> I am sending you this e-mail because I was given your URL in passing, and > found that you are distributing Cygwin amongst other Cygwin-linked utilities > , but there is no URL for the > corresponding source code. > > I see mentions of the GPL on your site, so

Possible GPL Violation

I am sending you this e-mail because I was given your URL in passing, and found that you are distributing Cygwin amongst other Cygwin-linked utilities , but there is no URL for the corresponding source code. I see mentions of the GPL on your site, so I'm guessi

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

Original Message: - >From: Patrick J. LoPresti [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 26 Mar 2003 12:11:50 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic >Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB) > [snip] >Oh, I almost forgot. Here is m

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

This is my last message on this thread. No, really. Most responders so far have essentially been sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU". I am not sure where people learned this forensic technique, but it does make it pretty obvious who has the stronger ar

Yet another GPL violation

http://www.thraexsoftware.com/sirid/ The Windows version of the installer includes postgres which uses Cygwin. I couldn't find any link to the source of either Cygwin or postgres on the site. Note that by default postgres is not required to run the application. It's there just as an option. -

RE: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: [snip, yeah I'll bite] > My main point is that an engineer has as much business interpreting > law as a salesperson has telling an engineer how to design a system. > PFHHT! Never had an engineering job, huh? > At issue here are people who distribute something for fre

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32(~7.5MB)

Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: FWIW: I am not a lawyer. And therefore, everything you have said may be safely ignored. guys, I can't believe you fell for this. *Do Not Feed The Trolls*. See LoPresti's other contributions to civil discourse: http://cygwi

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:06:57AM +0100, roland wrote: >ooops - what a thread :) >thanks - it was very interesting to see such different point of views. > >As a resumee, I basically mostly agree with Pat: > >>At issue here are people who distribute something for free along with >>Cygwin. They inc

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

ooops - what a thread :) thanks - it was very interesting to see such different point of views. As a resumee, I basically mostly agree with Pat: >At issue here are people who distribute something for free along with >Cygwin. They include full credit and links to the Cygwin source code, >which is

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

> > FWIW: I am not a lawyer. > And therefore, everything you have said may be safely ignored. Just for reference, if someone's looking for a lawyer not to ignore, that would probably Eben Moglen, FSF general counsel and board member (also a professor of law and legal history, formerly a cl

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:20:29PM -0500, Robert Praetorius wrote: >I'd say that he ought to be prevailed upon to right a document on how >non-lawyers can help with GPL enforcement, but he probably has and I >just haven't found that link yet. I suspect that http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

Original Message: - From: Patrick J. LoPresti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 25 Mar 2003 14:41:16 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB) >>Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:28:09PM -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>At 09:36 2003-03-25, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >>>Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> FWIW: I am not a lawyer. >>> >>>And therefore, everything you have said may be

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:41:16PM -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Just to be clear: Providing a simple link to the Cygwin sources is not >>adequate. > >So you keep saying. Is that a legal opinion on the meaning of the >license, or a personal req

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Pat, > > At 09:36 2003-03-25, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > >Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > FWIW: I am not a lawyer. > > > >And therefore, everything you have said may be safely ignored. > > Et tu? I require neither qualificati

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:36:15PM -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> FWIW: I am not a lawyer. > >And therefore, everything you have said may be safely ignored. > >Until this alleged GPL violator receives a "cease and desist" order >from an attorney,

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

lves at odds over its interpretation. Your notions about what constitutes a "GPL violation" are nothing more than your opinion. And you are not even qualified to have one, much less to express it. Much like the guy on the street corner expressing his opinion about the end of the world, it

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

happens when > the text of a law, in your opinion, conflicts with a court's > interpretation. Guess to whom the people with badges and guns are > going to listen? > > Your notions about what constitutes a "GPL violation" are nothing more > than your opinion. An

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

on. Guess to whom the people with badges and guns are going to listen? Your notions about what constitutes a "GPL violation" are nothing more than your opinion. And you are not even qualified to have one, much less to express it. Much like the guy on the street corner expressing his op

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

Charles Wilson wrote: [a bunch of stuff] FWIW: I am not a lawyer. I do not speak for Red Hat. I am not employed by Red Hat. I speak only for myself. But I've endured enough of these stupid license squables on enough lists to have learned a few somethings about the GPL... --Chuck -- Unsubs

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environmentforwin32(~7.5MB)

nfractions 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 ge

Re: Another GPL violation: Re: MinimalisticBuild-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

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 ! - Original Mes

Re: Possible GPL violation.

Hi Corinna, Ok, I'll make the sources available on our web server before I put the binary archive online again. By that time I'll send you a message so that you can visit my download page and confirm that things are done in the proper way. This will probably only be in September when I next teach

Re: Possible GPL violation.

Hi Robert, On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:40:25AM +0800, Robert Biuk-Aghai wrote: > Is my reading of the GPL, term 3, correct in that I need to download > the sources of all packages included in the binary archive file I > prepared, and place them on the same web server as the binary archive > file it

Re: Possible GPL violation.

Hi Rob, Thanks for pointing out my oversight of the appropriate GPL licensing terms. It was not my intention to violate the GPL, and I will endeavour to satisfy its requirements relating to source code distribution. In the meantime, I have disabled access to the binary archive on my website. I se

Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environment forwin32 (~7.5MB)

http://rockbox.haxx.se/mail/archive/rockbox-archive-2003-01/0108.shtml Has links to cygwin in binary form, no source. The poster has a for-spam address, and the list is closed to much effort to get the message through for me. Hopefully someone here will clue them into the GPL! Rob -- GPG

Possible GPL violation.

Robert, I'm writing to you because I noticed that has instructions for downloading a 17Mb archive of the cygwin utilities, but no link for the source code for the same utilities. Are you aware that the GPL requires *you* to mak

GPL Violation

John, AFAICT, you are violating the GPL by not providing the source for Cygwin's setup program that you appear to distribute in binary only: http://burks.brighton.ac.uk/burks/software/langs/install.sw?1.cygwin.exe#1.cygwin.exe If you are distributing the source, then make it more apparent (

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

  1   2   >