From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18695 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2007 07:28:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 15294 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2007 00:02:34 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: Cc: "'Yaakov \(Cygwin Ports\)'" References: <46872417.5010406@byu.net> <468729AE.DFBAD955@dessent.net> <4687B75A.9020700@byu.net> <4687B75A.9020700-PGZyUNKar/Q@public.gmane.org> <20070702073958.GY30973@calimero.vinschen.de> <20070702151834.GC30973@calimero.vinschen.de> <20070702180442.GE30973@calimero.vinschen.de> <46895B87.3060908@users.sourceforge.net> <01c001c7bd00$8d50f050$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <46898FC2.6020703@users.sourceforge.net> Subject: RE: GPLv3 Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01cc01c7bd05$3376d360$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <46898FC2.6020703@users.sourceforge.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Thread-Index: Ace9A8iE8gEozcYISraiGtMQ0uH2hwAAIBsA X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2007 00:00:44.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[338467F0:01C7BD05] Mailing-List: contact cygwin-licensing-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-licensing-owner@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On 03 July 2007 00:53, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote: [ Thread TITTLL'd. CC'ing you just once to let you know. ] > While wrt GPLv3 software I agree that this is purely hypothetical and > certainly soon to be moot (when OSI certifies GPLv3), one could conceive > another case which would be relevant and possibly damaging to RH: > > 1) 3PP distributes clearly non-FOSS software depending on Cygwin (either > w/o Cygwin itself or with Cygwin and sources). > > 2) RH sues 3PP for violation of Cygwin license. > > 3) Defendant successfully argues that "complies with" != "certified", > and continues with elaborate explanation how his license supposedly > complies with OSI definition. > > 4) Court (or, worse yet, uneducated, uninformed, layman jury) falls for > defendant's hot air. > > While I'm certain RH has excellent lawyers and this argument would be > well fought, this "subjective judgement", as you put it, could make this > problematic, or just unnecessary difficult (and expensive) at best. Of course, this is a general legal principle: if it comes to court, everyone has lost already (except the lawyers). But the generic principles of contract law are fairly clear: as long as RH aren't irrational or wildly unreasonable in their decision on whether or not it 'complies', it's up to them and their definition, because they're the people you're in contract with. I've worked in computer games in the past. The contract always comes with a clause that allows the publisher to reject the game if it is not up to a 'satisfactory' standard, or to demand fixes and improvements without extra payment. The judgement of what is 'satisfactory' is, to a very great degree, whatever the publishers say does or does not satisfy them; unless they are hugely and blatantly unreasonable, the court will let them set their own standards, because those are the standards you agreed to when you signed up to the contract. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....