redistributing cygwin1.dll

[Christopher Faylor]

I found your contact info on a mailing list while I was looking for
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-02/msg01673.html
it looks like you're the person to contact to solve my problem. If not,
please redirect me to the right person.

The "right person" is the cygwin mailing list. You somehow found the archives
without finding the numerous exhortations against private email.

I've cc'ed this message there.

I've been writing some small utilities for friends of mine that only
run Windows. As an open source developper, I made them all available
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/devel.html
The problem is that casual users of my tools, as well as the friends I
wrote the programs for, won't download and install the complete Cygwin
system. So, I made the cygwin1.dll file available from my website, so
they can use my programs.
From what I read on the mailing list, I am infringing the GPL doing so.

Yes, you are not compliant with the GPL.

And by no means I intended to do so nor do I want to continue. Still
from what I read of the list, you were supposed to propose a way to
correct the problem, by letting the users download the dll alone,
without the rest of the Cygwin system? Has it finally been done?
In any case, please let me know what I'm supposed to do.

I haven't had the time to implement anything special. Your simplest
solution is just to make sure that the sources for your applications are
downloadable and that the source code (e.g., cygwin-1.3.22-src.tar.bz2)
for the cygwin DLL you are providing is also available. It really isn't
that hard.

cgf

[Jean Delvare]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Igor Pechtchanski]

Post by Jean Delvare

Post by Christopher Faylor

it looks like you're the person to contact to solve my problem. If
not, please redirect me to the right person.

The "right person" is the cygwin mailing list. You somehow found the
archives without finding the numerous exhortations against private
email.
I've cc'ed this message there.

Oops, sorry. I should have paid more attention, since I am myself on
many mailing-lists and I hate being contacted in private as much as you
seem to be. Sorry again.

Post by Christopher Faylor

From what I read on the mailing list, I am infringing the GPL doing so.

Yes, you are not compliant with the GPL.
(...)
I haven't had the time to implement anything special. Your simplest
solution is just to make sure that the sources for your applications
are downloadable and that the source code (e.g.,
cygwin-1.3.22-src.tar.bz2) for the cygwin DLL you are providing is
also available. It really isn't that hard.

Not that I find it hard, but it's probably much trouble for nothing. And
I don't speak for me only. I'm not the only one facing the problem,
since I could first find a previous post on the mailing list with the
same kind of request, and a quick search with Google gave me some more
pages proposing cygwin1.dll for download without the sources. On some
other pages, the file simply isn't available for download anymore, due
to the licensing issue (which means that the author chose to remove the
binary rather than to make the sources available for download).
I really think you should do something about this. Forcing people to
* Some people will choose to remove the binary, possibly due to
technical limitations. This makes their work unusable for most users.
* Others will choose to make the sources available (few of them, I
suppose). It's probably a waste of space, since few users, if any, will
ever download it, and the ones wanting to do so will probably get the
file from cygwin's setup.
* Most people, I believe, will keep the binary without offering the
sources. They'll infringe the GPL and I can't blame them for that. They
don't intend to do anything bad, most of them are sharing their own
code. Such cases of unpunished GPL infringement could be exploited by
evil lawyers.
* In the two later cases, the binary and possibly source form of the
library will be quickly outdated, since Cygwin is evolving rather fast.
I don't plan to update my page that often, and I believe most authors
won't either.
So, I really believe you should set a place up where people can get the
latest version of cygwin1.dll, in binary and source forms. A simple or
http directory would do it, if you don't want to make it very public and
advertise for it. Authors like me would then just have to link to the
directory, sparing disk space and protecting the GPL.
Comments welcome.

Jean,

This has been rehashed on the list many times. There is such a place --
in fact, many places, collectively called "the Cygwin mirrors". Simply
instruct your users to download "setup.exe" from Cygwin's main site (i.e.,
<http://cygwin.com/>), and use it to install the "cygwin" package. This
will get them a minimum setup required to run your code. That way all you
have to worry about is your program running on all versions of
cygwin1.dll, and you're all set.
Igor

[Jean Delvare]

Post by Igor Pechtchanski

Post by Jean Delvare
So, I really believe you should set a place up where people can get
the latest version of cygwin1.dll, in binary and source forms. A
simple or http directory would do it, if you don't want to make it
very public and advertise for it. Authors like me would then just
have to link to the directory, sparing disk space and protecting the
GPL.
Comments welcome.

Jean,
This has been rehashed on the list many times. There is such a place
-- in fact, many places, collectively called "the Cygwin mirrors".
Simply instruct your users to download "setup.exe" from Cygwin's main
site (i.e.,<http://cygwin.com/>), and use it to install the "cygwin"
package. This will get them a minimum setup required to run your
code. That way all you have to worry about is your program running on
all versions of cygwin1.dll, and you're all set.

It isn't an acceptable solution IMHO. Don't you think it's much more
complicated than just downloading a single dll (or, say, a zipped dll)?
I think it is. The "cygwin" package contains much more than the dll (and
I believe that only the dll is needed for simple users). Well, if people
are really wanting to use the program, I guess they'll download the
Cygwin setup program and install the package, but I'd bet most people
that just would have tested the program will give up pretty fast with
your method. This isn't the way I imagine free software. We are wanting
to make the software available, and we don't want it to be a burden for
users, right? What's more, less testers, less users, less feedback leads
to lower quality software.

So, I'm still in favor of a dll available for download as a single file.

[Igor Pechtchanski]

Jean,

I have set the Reply-To: field to point to the list -- please make sure
your mailer honors that. Thanks. More replies below.

Post by Jean Delvare

Post by Igor Pechtchanski

Post by Jean Delvare
So, I really believe you should set a place up where people can get
the latest version of cygwin1.dll, in binary and source forms. A
simple or http directory would do it, if you don't want to make it
very public and advertise for it. Authors like me would then just
have to link to the directory, sparing disk space and protecting the
GPL.
Comments welcome.

Jean,
This has been rehashed on the list many times. There is such a place
-- in fact, many places, collectively called "the Cygwin mirrors".
Simply instruct your users to download "setup.exe" from Cygwin's main
site (i.e.,<http://cygwin.com/>), and use it to install the "cygwin"
package. This will get them a minimum setup required to run your
code. That way all you have to worry about is your program running on
all versions of cygwin1.dll, and you're all set.

It isn't an acceptable solution IMHO. Don't you think it's much more
complicated than just downloading a single dll (or, say, a zipped dll)?
I think it is. The "cygwin" package contains much more than the dll (and
I believe that only the dll is needed for simple users). Well, if people
are really wanting to use the program, I guess they'll download the
Cygwin setup program and install the package, but I'd bet most people
that just would have tested the program will give up pretty fast with
your method. This isn't the way I imagine free software. We are wanting
to make the software available, and we don't want it to be a burden for
users, right? What's more, less testers, less users, less feedback leads
to lower quality software.
So, I'm still in favor of a dll available for download as a single file.

IMO, if you say that your application requires Cygwin, people will install
it if they really want to use your application. In fact, the Cygwin setup
mechanism makes it very easy to set up your own mirror containing just
your program, and have users install it using setup.exe. You can also
list the dependences for your package (see <http://cygwin.com/setup.html>
for details). That way, your instructions would look something like "Add
<my URL> to the list of mirrors in setup.exe and run setup as usual.
Select only <my package>." This also eliminates the need for you to write
your own installer. Now, what could be easier? ;-)

If you do intend to distribute your own copy of cygwin1.dll, it's your
responsibility to make sure that (a) you are able to provide the
corresponding sources *for the version of cygwin1.dll that you are
distributing*, and (b) you instruct people how to deal with multiple
versions of cygwin1.dll on their systems that result from others following
the same practice. FWICS, that seems to be more headache than it's worth,
and it's much easier to just let people download and install Cygwin from
the official sources.
Igor

[Joshua Daniel Franklin]

Post by Jean Delvare

Post by Christopher Faylor

From what I read on the mailing list, I am infringing the GPL doing so.

Yes, you are not compliant with the GPL.
(...)
I haven't had the time to implement anything special. Your simplest
solution is just to make sure that the sources for your applications
are downloadable and that the source code (e.g.,
cygwin-1.3.22-src.tar.bz2) for the cygwin DLL you are providing is
also available. It really isn't that hard.

Not that I find it hard, but it's probably much trouble for nothing.

How is it much trouble? Just download the latest dll and sources.

Post by Jean Delvare
I really think you should do something about this. Forcing people to

If you don't like the GPL, this is not the place to talk about it.
The license is there. You may comply, which is really quite simple, or
you may not redistribute cygwin. If you think the GPL should have a
clause for other Free software projects not needing to have a copy of
the sources for another project's binaries, contact the Free Software
Foundation. Maybe they'll put it in the GPLv3, though I doubt it since
it really is a good idea to have the source to everything you're using.

Post by Jean Delvare
So, I really believe you should set a place up where people can get the
latest version of cygwin1.dll, in binary and source forms. A simple or
http directory would do it, if you don't want to make it very public and
advertise for it. Authors like me would then just have to link to the
directory, sparing disk space and protecting the GPL.

These are called 'mirrors', and they're already listed at
<http://cygwin.com/mirrors.html>. If all you want is the cygwin1.dll file,
download the cygwin-X.X-X.tar.bz2 package. There are some other tools in
there, but it only totals about 1MB. But if you let people download it from
your site, you must also include the cygwin-X.X-X-src.tar.bz2 just like the
mirrors do.

Post by Jean Delvare
Comments welcome.

Same here.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Jean Delvare

Post by Christopher Faylor
Yes, you are not compliant with the GPL.
(...)
I haven't had the time to implement anything special. Your simplest
solution is just to make sure that the sources for your applications
are downloadable and that the source code (e.g.,
cygwin-1.3.22-src.tar.bz2) for the cygwin DLL you are providing is
also available. It really isn't that hard.

Not that I find it hard, but it's probably much trouble for nothing.

So, you'd prefer that any trouble here would be mine, eh? I've given
you tools and I've given you the rules via which you can use the tools.
No money has changed hands. If there is a burden of obligation, it
flows from you to me, not the other way around. I am under no
obligation to make your life easier in any way but the rules are so
clear and so simple that it is difficult to understand why we even have
to be here discussing them or talking about them as if there was an
immense amount of trouble involved.

Just how ungrateful is it for you to insist that I do more for you when
ALL THAT YOU HAVE TO DO is download cygwin-1.3.22-1-src.tar.bz2 and make
it available for download?

You've probably wasted more time with this email than you would have
taken just performing that simple operation.

You referenced a URL where I talked about making the DLL available for
download. Had I done that (and I'm now less inclined thanks to your
email) I would have also made the source available. I wasn't going to
bypass the GPL. You could do the same.

Post by Jean Delvare
And I don't speak for me only. I'm not the only one facing the
problem, since I could first find a previous post on the mailing list
with the same kind of request, and a quick search with Google gave me
some more pages proposing cygwin1.dll for download without the sources.

If you are under the impression that we don't notify people who are
bypassing the GPL when it is brought to our attention, you are sorely
mistaken. We don't spend every minute of every day scouring the internet
looking for offenders but when we hear about them we do notify them.

If you are under the impression that somehow your simplistic reasoning
is unique or new you are also very wrong. You are following the trend
of countless others who offer the same self-serving tired arguments when
they could easily just be taking ten minutes to offer the sources
and be done with it. It is quite amazing how predictable the response
is when people are asked to comply with the GPL. There must be some
kind of instinctual racial memory that is being tickled by the GPL,
causing everyone to respond in the same knee-jerk sophmoric manner.

Post by Jean Delvare
On some other pages, the file simply isn't available for download
anymore, due to the licensing issue (which means that the author chose
to remove the binary rather than to make the sources available for
download).

Someone chose not to include a 6MB file on their web site or in their
ftp area and I'm supposed to do something to help them? The year is
2003. 6MB is not a lot of space.

Cygwin is a popular project. I don't care if a few people can't deal
with our licensing. This is not an argument that gives you any
leverage. You have no leverage. I don't owe you anything.

Post by Jean Delvare
I really think you should do something about this. Forcing people to

My response to you was that I hadn't had the time to put lone DLL on the
web page. Is there a comprehension problem here? Am I under some
obligation to do things in your time frame? I think not.

Let me be clear that my saying that I may do something doesn't remove
your obligation to adhere to the GPL. You could have just taken my
"haven't had the time" as an indication that this would eventually be
done and just graciously offered the sources on your web site until such
time as I did have the time.

Yet, here you are insisting that I take my time responding to you and
acting as if I never offered to make the DLL available. Incredible.

Post by Jean Delvare
* Some people will choose to remove the binary, possibly due to
technical limitations. This makes their work unusable for most users.
* Others will choose to make the sources available (few of them, I
suppose). It's probably a waste of space, since few users, if any, will
ever download it, and the ones wanting to do so will probably get the
file from cygwin's setup.
* Most people, I believe, will keep the binary without offering the
sources. They'll infringe the GPL and I can't blame them for that. They
don't intend to do anything bad, most of them are sharing their own
code. Such cases of unpunished GPL infringement could be exploited by
evil lawyers.

Again, if we know about GPL infringers, we will contact them. You've
wandered into this mailing list spouting tired self-serving arguments
that have been made time and again for this and other free software
projects.

The fact that you found a web site that offered the dll without the
sources is irrelevant. If you'd like to provide the URL of said
site, we'll contact them.

The fact that you found a web site where someone has decided not to
offer cygwin-based binaries because they didn't want to include cygwin
source code is also irrelevant. That was their decision. My project
is doing just fine without catering to their need to distribute the
DLL without the source.

You don't have to use cygwin. You're benefitting from thousands of man
hours of work. You could at least do us the courtesy of playing by our
rules without whining about them.

It's a real shame. I thought from your original email that you were
willing to do the right thing. Now I can see that you're just another
user who thinks you're owed something.

Post by Jean Delvare
So, I really believe you should set a place up where people can get the
latest version of cygwin1.dll, in binary and source forms. A simple or
http directory would do it, if you don't want to make it very public and
advertise for it. Authors like me would then just have to link to the
directory, sparing disk space and protecting the GPL.
Comments welcome.

I doubt that you'll like my comments. I'd already said that I would make
the DLL available. You even found the email.

However, for the record, I now withdraw the offer. You, and people like
you, who think you deserve something have convinced me that the burden
of making this available is not worth it. And, believe me, had I made
this available it would have increased the support burden because there
would have been people downloading the DLL and scratching their heads
over the fact that bash and/or ssh didn't work.

So, you have some choices: 1) provide the sources, 2) remove the binaries
from your site, 3) point to a cygwin mirror site and instruct people to
download the .tar.bz2 files and unpack them.

cgf
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to ***@sourceware.org
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

I'm back. Did you miss me?

It is quite amazing how predictable the response is when people are
asked to comply with the GPL. There must be some kind of
instinctual racial memory that is being tickled by the GPL, causing
everyone to respond in the same knee-jerk sophmoric manner.

(I think you mean "sophomoric". Yeah, I know, pointing out spelling
errors is sophomoric.)

There is a simpler explanation than instinctual racial memory, which
is that most people naturally consider strict enforcement of the GPL
to be very silly in cases like this.

The typical exchange is roughly:

Q: The Cygwin sources are already widely available. Isn't it silly
for me to distribute them?

A: The GPL requires it.

But that does not answer the question! Just because the GPL requires
something does not necessarily make it less silly.

Why do you want strict enforcement of the GPL in this case? "Because
it's the license" is not an answer. The question is, why do YOU want
to enforce it IN THIS CASE?

I think this is a fair question, even for the maintainer.

Put another way, what goal is achieved by making this person
distribute the source? Again, "compliance with the GPL" is not an
answer... What good does it achieve, or what evil does it prevent?

It is true that, as maintainer, your opinion carries a lot of weight.
And you are not required to answer anybody's demands. But your
opinion would carry even more weight if you could justify it with
credible answers to these questions, rather than pulling out the
bureaucratic non-answer "because the license says so".

- Pat

[Igor Pechtchanski]

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
I'm back. Did you miss me?

It is quite amazing how predictable the response is when people are
asked to comply with the GPL. There must be some kind of
instinctual racial memory that is being tickled by the GPL, causing
everyone to respond in the same knee-jerk sophmoric manner.

(I think you mean "sophomoric". Yeah, I know, pointing out spelling
errors is sophomoric.)
There is a simpler explanation than instinctual racial memory, which
is that most people naturally consider strict enforcement of the GPL
to be very silly in cases like this.
Q: The Cygwin sources are already widely available. Isn't it silly
for me to distribute them?
A: The GPL requires it.
But that does not answer the question! Just because the GPL requires
something does not necessarily make it less silly.
Why do you want strict enforcement of the GPL in this case? "Because
it's the license" is not an answer. The question is, why do YOU want
to enforce it IN THIS CASE?
I think this is a fair question, even for the maintainer.
Put another way, what goal is achieved by making this person
distribute the source? Again, "compliance with the GPL" is not an
answer... What good does it achieve, or what evil does it prevent?
It is true that, as maintainer, your opinion carries a lot of weight.
And you are not required to answer anybody's demands. But your
opinion would carry even more weight if you could justify it with
credible answers to these questions, rather than pulling out the
bureaucratic non-answer "because the license says so".
- Pat

Pat,

I assume you agree with the necessity of having the source for *the
particular binaries that you distribute* available - that's consistent
with the whole open-source philosophy, and I guess you're not disputing
that. If so, here's a *good* reason to make people distributing
cygwin1.dll also make the sources available: if, for some reason, the site
containing the sources goes down, you, as the distributor of the binary
package, are out of luck. You will have to provide the sources yourself.
Complying with the GPL is going to save you the trouble. If you wish, you
can link to another site that has the sources, provided that when that
site goes down or changes, you'll be able to distribute the exact sources
that your binary was compiled from. All of the above has been said
before, at least twice on my memory, but I thought it might be time to
remind people. Again, IANAL (hmm, *are* there any lawyers on this list?),
so you're welcome to ignore me.

The enforcement of compliance with the GPL is, in most cases, to protect
the original authors of the software from having to keep old sources
around just because someone somewhere wants to keep distributing the old
binary, and from the headache that the complaints of those other people
would bring should the source for the old versions of the binaries
suddenly become not "widely available".
Igor
P.S. You have the right to an opinion that GPL is silly, but this list is
not the place to express it, and expressing it here will not result in any
real changes. Same could be said about 99.9% of the GPL discussions here.
I'm sure the FSF maintains a list just for this purpose.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
I'm back. Did you miss me?

Actually, I made a mental bet with myself that this message would
draw you out. You're pretty predictable.

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti

It is quite amazing how predictable the response is when people are
asked to comply with the GPL. There must be some kind of
instinctual racial memory that is being tickled by the GPL, causing
everyone to respond in the same knee-jerk sophmoric manner.

(I think you mean "sophomoric". Yeah, I know, pointing out spelling
errors is sophomoric.)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
There is a simpler explanation than instinctual racial memory, which
is that most people naturally consider strict enforcement of the GPL
to be very silly in cases like this.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
Q: The Cygwin sources are already widely available. Isn't it silly
for me to distribute them?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
A: The GPL requires it.
But that does not answer the question! Just because the GPL requires
something does not necessarily make it less silly.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
and
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

again, I suppose, for the consistent use of the word "silly".

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
Why do you want strict enforcement of the GPL in this case? "Because
it's the license" is not an answer. The question is, why do YOU want
to enforce it IN THIS CASE?
I think this is a fair question, even for the maintainer.

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?

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. There is nothing specific about this
situation which requires me to explain my deepest motives. 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.

The hard part is dealing with hypocritical individuals who condemn other
people for their style but resort to spelling corrections and other
boorish combative behavior in nearly every message they send. I really
would rather do without that. However, I will persevere, never fear.

cgf

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

Post by Christopher Faylor
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.

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
(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...

Post by Christopher Faylor
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?

Post by Christopher Faylor
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.

Post by Christopher Faylor
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.

Post by Christopher Faylor
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,
repeatedly.

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.

Cheers!

- Pat

[Elfyn McBratney]

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti

Post by Christopher Faylor
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.

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
(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...

Post by Christopher Faylor
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.

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti

Post by Christopher Faylor
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.

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.

Post by Christopher Faylor
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.

Post by Christopher Faylor
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,
repeatedly.
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.
Cheers!
- 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.

Elfyn

[Christopher Faylor]

[snip]

I am not going to let myself be drawn down this rat hole again.

I said that I would research this GPL thing back in March and I sent the
results of the research to the mailing list in a clearly labelled
message. I have no intention of doing research to find a URL. I've
verified that it was actually sent in my personal archives.

I also have no intention of rationalizing why I am trying to be
consistent in enforcing the license and I have no intention of
discussing your psychological suppositions as to why I do what I do.

On rereading my GPL clarification email I can see that I didn't take
my own advice when responding to the email that started this thread.

"We should try to be non-confrontational when we bring issues to the
attention of the well-meaning people who think they are open source
advocates if they provide our binaries on their site.'

I don't think I was particularly confrontational when I suggested that
including the sources was required but I was when responding to the
typical response to that suggestion.

I can't guarantee that I won't be annoyed in the future by having to
explain this YA but I'll try to remember to keep the non-confrontational
aspect of the response in mind and reign in my distaste for this
particular part of my cygwin maintainership duties. Strangely, this
part of cygwin maintainership is not even a volunteer effort. Both
Corinna and I have an obligation to Red Hat to see that the Cygwin
license is enforced.

cgf
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to ***@sourceware.org
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

Post by Christopher Faylor
I said that I would research this GPL thing back in March and I sent
the results of the research to the mailing list in a clearly
labelled message. I have no intention of doing research to find a
URL. I've verified that it was actually sent in my personal
archives.

I assume you mean <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg02082.html>.
That still does not answer my main question: What good is achieved or
harm is avoided by strict enforcement of the GPL in cases like this?

The only credible response so far is, roughly, that you must enforce
your license or risk being unable to do so in the future. I spoke to
an IP lawyer today (informally), and I am going to share what I
learned. If this makes me a "troll" whom you want to ban from the
list, so be it.

The relevant legal principle is called the "Doctrine of Laches". It
typically applies when a copyright holder sues for infringement after
a long period of ignoring a violation. (For example, when Xerox sued
Apple and Microsoft over the desktop metaphor.)

But this doctrine is very unlikely to apply here. We are not talking
about ignoring a specific violation and pursuing it later. We are
talking about "selective enforcement" of a license; that is, enforcing
the license differently for different people committing different
violations. And in general, selective enforcement does NOT diminish
your rights under copyright law.

It is obvious (to me, anyway) that not all violations of the GPL are
equal. There is a big difference between:

A) Redistributing a GPL binary as-is, for free, with clear
indications of where the source can be obtained

and

B) Taking GPL source code, modifying it, compiling it, and selling
the result as a binary-only product

Treating these two cases identically is consistent, but it is a
foolish consistency.

It would be simple to craft language which would let you INFORMALLY
permit (A) without diminishing your ability to prosecute (B). Of
course, this would require that you have some desire to distinguish
these cases, which obviously you do not.

- Pat

P.S. Do you believe you are capable of having a reasonable discussion
with someone who disagrees with you? Do you believe you are capable
of having your mind changed by an argument? I ask because I have
tried to write reasoned, intelligent messages; a little condescending,
perhaps, but no more so than the vast majority of your own. Yet your
replies so far have amounted to little more than name calling
("troll", "boor", and so on).

[Shankar Unni]

Post by Patrick J. LoPresti
A) Redistributing a GPL binary as-is, for free, with clear
indications of where the source can be obtained
It would be simple to craft language which would let you INFORMALLY
permit (A) without diminishing your ability to prosecute (B). Of
course, this would require that you have some desire to distinguish
these cases, which obviously you do not.

I take it you haven't bandied words with RMS? :-)

--
Shankar.

PS The answer is "no" to that last statement, but it's not a personal
cgf thing. That's the whole point to the GNU philosophy..

[Randall R Schulz]

Yo! Presto Man,

Where's that bait site you were going to set up? Or is it one of those
hide-and-seek things?

RRS

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Randall R Schulz
Yo! Presto Man,
Where's that bait site you were going to set up? Or is it one of those
hide-and-seek things?

Randall,
If I understand what you're talking about, I think I mentioned here
that it is off-topic and that I'd block any attempts by anyone who
was advocating flaunting of GPL violations. So, it wouldn't be
fair to ask anyone to talk about it since...

Hey, what am I saying?! Good strategy, Randall!

cgf

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

Post by Randall R Schulz
Yo! Presto Man,

Yo yourself, Randy Schwing! How's it hangin'?

Post by Randall R Schulz
Where's that bait site you were going to set up? Or is it one of
those hide-and-seek things?

Only so many hours in the day, my man. Even I have better things to
do with most of my time.

Know what my main reservation is? Although I personally would try to
keep a stiff upper lip in the face of spurious legal threats from
semiliterate defenders of the faith, I am not sure my ISP would be so
sanguine. And I do not relish the notion of hunting for a new one.
Service providers get so JUMPY these days about copyright
infringement, even when the charge is questionable.

Now, if I had a "gentlemans' agreement" that all litigious assaults
would be directed at me personally... But I suppose that is unlikely.

Take care of yourself.

- Pat

[Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail)]

Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 7:47 PM
Someone chose not to include a 6MB file on their web site or in their
ftp area and I'm supposed to do something to help them? The year is
2003. 6MB is not a lot of space.

FYI:
My ISP does supply me with a whopping 10MB of "web space" - so much for
"2003".
At school I have 40MB, not much that either.

Life isn't easy these days... ;-P

/Hannu E K Nevalainen, Mariefred, Sweden
--
FACTS:
To get past this, i.e. use your own harddisk and your own server - one has
to have at least a DSL line and a private IP (which isn't possible
currently; i.e. all dynamic).
Hampering with dyndns.org-stuff might help with the need for an IP.

The price tag isn't nice - almost $40 per month for a 250/64 kbit
down/up-link. (ADSL 2000/400 kbit is $60/month)

In comparision:
ISDN is almost $30/month and 128/128 kbit PLUS a time based charge
(2*$0.02875 per minute daytime, half that in evenings). With this time based
charge you do not run servers 24/7.

v92 modem is also possible, with the same time based charge as above
($0.02875 per minute daytime)

-- END OF MESSAGE --

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail)

Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 7:47 PM
Someone chose not to include a 6MB file on their web site or in their
ftp area and I'm supposed to do something to help them? The year is
2003. 6MB is not a lot of space.

My ISP does supply me with a whopping 10MB of "web space" - so much for
"2003".
At school I have 40MB, not much that either.
Life isn't easy these days... ;-P

Yes, I fully expected this response.

Post by Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail)
To get past this, i.e. use your own harddisk and your own server - one has
to have at least a DSL line and a private IP (which isn't possible
currently; i.e. all dynamic).
Hampering with dyndns.org-stuff might help with the need for an IP.
The price tag isn't nice - almost $40 per month for a 250/64 kbit
down/up-link. (ADSL 2000/400 kbit is $60/month)
ISDN is almost $30/month and 128/128 kbit PLUS a time based charge
(2*$0.02875 per minute daytime, half that in evenings). With this time based
charge you do not run servers 24/7.
v92 modem is also possible, with the same time based charge as above
($0.02875 per minute daytime)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

1 minute of google search unearths this:

http://www.freewebspace.net/php/search.php?form_space=10&b=0&i=10&a=1

cgf

[Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail)]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Wayne]

Q: The Cygwin sources are already widely available. Isn't it silly
for me to distribute them?

I believe I have a simple answer that is, I believe correct and logical,
if not neccessarily all of the answer.

Suppose I have a product. My product requires that my software
link/utilize cygwin1.dll. Now, I don't put out builds of my
software that often, say a couple of times a year. Between
builds of my software, the source of cygwin1.dll may change a
couple of times. The current version of my software uses cygwin1.dll
version 5.5. The current version available from the Cygwin board is
5.7. Someone comes along with a great idea to improve waynesadolt
(my package). They make their change to the source, go get
cygwin1.dll version 5.7 source, and bandgo, it doesn't work.
Failing *miserably* to make a long story short, the requirement
for CM for cygwin1.dll (source too) resides with *me*, not Red Hat.
It is not up to Red Hat to keep track of the version of cygwin1.dll
that *my* package is linked against. It is also not up to Cygwin
to keep every version of the cygwin1.dll just because I happen to think
version B19 was better than anything before or after.

Practical reason.

Personally, I prefer the simpler "Its in the contract that I
agreed to by using cygwin1.dll in waynesadolt"

Yes I am sure there are many typo's and mis-spellings, I am, after all,
just a dumb'ol'country boy physicist.

Wayne

[Keen Wayne A Contr AFRL/MNGG]

"What do we gain by hitting him on the head and telling him to adhere to the
GPL?"

Because if Billy is going to use cygwin1.dll, it is his job to provide all
of the source code for his widget. As I pointed out earlier, it is not the
job of the Cygwin team to do configuration management for Billy to insure
that they have a copy of the source code for the particular version of
cygwin1.dll that Billy used (he is after all fond of B20).

Wayne