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
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.
Buchbinder,Barry(NIH/NIAID)[E] writes:
long explanation
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
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 content
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 there.
Hi Dave,
Markus E.L. writes:
DaveKorn writes:
snipped
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
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)
AFAICT, the
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 the
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
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 http://rateless.com/?
I've sent a message requesting that they provide source code for their
programs but it seems like
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 if there
-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.
Bill
TITTLL, to coin a phrase
[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 decide if they wish to
enforce their license.
Bill
-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
Subject: Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?
It looks
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Does anyone know if there is source code available for the binary
downloads from http://rateless.com/?
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
-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 binary
downloads from http
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 their web
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.
-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?
Probably the
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
Does anyone know if there is source code available for the binary
downloads from http://rateless.com/?
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
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 http://rateless.com/?
I've sent a message requesting that they provide source code for their
programs but it seems like this is YA case of someone
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 anyone to
At 02:11 PM 5/9/2004, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR
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 considered me.
While I
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 cannot
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 want
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 explains it. Yep, a
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 should have
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 than
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:
-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-lawyer
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
-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. Mind
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 wouldnt have
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
-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
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 worth so
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-shirt...
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
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
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
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
provide a
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 own copying
- 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 in a project as a shared library/DLL is just
peachy;
GPL requires
(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 would
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 my response
to
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.
These are
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
: 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
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
--
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: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
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.
PFHHTcarbonated beverage shoots out nose!
Never had an engineering job, huh?
At issue here are people
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.
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
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
http://hot.ee/tar/?l=/tar/download/, but there is no URL for the
corresponding source code.
I see mentions of the GPL on your site, so I'm
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
http://hot.ee/tar/?l=/tar/download/, but there is no URL for the
corresponding source code.
I see mentions of the GPL on your site, so I'm
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 http://hot.ee/tar/?l=/tar/download/, but there is no URL
for the corresponding
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 http://hot.ee/tar/?l=/tar/download/, but there is no URL
for the
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
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
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
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
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
http://hot.ee/tar/?l=/tar/download/, but there is no URL for the
corresponding source code.
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 opinion about the end of the world, it is kind
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 opinion about the end
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 is kind of boring.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Even
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, he has no
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
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
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:
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
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
: Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: roland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Another GPL violation: Re: MinimalisticBuild-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)
---End Message---
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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
a reminder?
Yes, probably via certified mail or from the friendly man in the County
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
: 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 provision?
The GPL
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 welcome
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 I
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: GPL Violation
: 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
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/.
I did.
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 Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 01:01:43AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Responding to Jason
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
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
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
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 that the
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 CD
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
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.,
You are violating the GPL license by not providing the source for Cygwin
on your fetchmail web page:
http://spt.free.fr/fetchmail/
Please provide the Cygwin source that corresponds to the version of
cygwin1.dll on the above web page at your earliest convenience.
Thanks,
Jason
--
PGP/GPG
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
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 the
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
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
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 to the latest
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.
Would a
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.
Would a link to
[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 required to
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 understand
/ 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 you
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
