ct: Re: Another GPL violation: Re:
Minimalistic Build-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
>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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> > 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
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
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:
>>
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
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
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
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,
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?
Until this alleged GPL violator receives a "cease and desist" order
from an attorney, he has no reas
> 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 reason to even consider modifying his
> behavior.
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 reason to even consider modifying his
behavior. (Except to be poli
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
To dig into this, this will cost me HOURS !
And how many hours do you think went into setup, cygwin, and all of the
ports?
Any tips for an easy solution ?
Uploading a few source tarballs to your website is a hell of lot easier
than recoding everything from scratch. Remember, the GPL says that i
20 matches
Mail list logo
