From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22029 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2009 16:44:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 21911 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2009 16:43:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:44:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: GPL violation? Message-ID: <20090802164323.GA3655@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com References: <20090802040243.GA2117@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4A759648.2020102@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A759648.2020102@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 06:36:08AM -0700, Tim Prince wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> This article seems to imply that Dell is distributing Cygwin, >> possibly in violation of the GPL: >> >> http://jbarillari.blogspot.com/2009/07/cygwinompmfail.html >> >> Ka-ching for Red Hat? > >You claim that BLODA violates GPL? I don't see any claim there that >Dell distributed cygwin. Then you weren't reading very closely. >To the contrary, if they have BLODA which breaks cygwin, that fits the >standard Windows marketing model "we don't fix bugs which turn up most >often under cygwin." I didn't claim anything like that. It's quite odd that you would assume that I don't understand the GPL. My supposition is that Dell is releasing an application which doesn't conform to the GPL. This has nothing to do with BLODA. If you want to sling acronyms around, however, this is apparently a case of 3PP. cgf