Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <41795440.50102@x-ray.at>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:41:04 +0200
From: Reini Urban <rurban AT x-ray DOT at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-AT; rv:1.8a3) Gecko/20040817
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?
References: <NUTMEGXjs5FGJziWwSo000001cd AT NUTMEG DOT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
In-Reply-To: <NUTMEGXjs5FGJziWwSo000001cd@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

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:\WINDOWS\System32\KERNEL32.dll
>>>      C:\WINDOWS\System32\RPCRT4.dll
>>>dk AT mace /win/c/downloads/rateless>
>>>
>>>  LOL.  They owe me their source code.
>>
>>Or remove the cygwin build. That's the option they'll probably choose.
> 
> 
>   They can remove it from their website if they like, but it's too late.  As long
> as I am in posession of a binary of a GPL'd program, I have a non-negotiable right
> to a copy of the very same sources from which the binary I have was compiled.
> There are no if's or but's.
> 
>   Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, So Everything I Have Said Can Be Safely Ignored.

I'm not sure if this will hold on court.

I also wrote:
 >>Question is how to enforce the current state of affairs.

I know that not many court decisions have been made on those GPL 
enforcement issues. And it will depend on the judge if the term 
"distribution" will be interpreted short-term (bad for rateless) or 
longer-term.

rateless will probably just say:
"We didn't know that. No offsense intended, no harm done. We removed it 
immediately. It's not distributed anymore."
And maybe they dare to deny any GPL lawyer claim for this short-term 
offense and go to court with this minor issue, not giving out the sources.
But I want to see that.
-- 
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/