[nas] Re: You are apparently unaware that you (with NAS) are violating the GPL?

[Jon Trulson]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Soren A wrote:

> Trulson, Ferrari, et al:
>
> I am in error with regards to my previous statement (in the private
> email sent to Jon Trulson which he so courteously posted to a
> public forum without permission): the terms of the Cygwin license
> do not require that the user of the binary files provided on the
> NAS site (http://radscan.com/nas.html, administered / owned
> (apparently) by Jon Trulson), only can then use ("license") the
> program under the terms of the GPL. Any OSD-conformant license for
> the NAS program(s) is acceptable under Cygwin's terms. However,
> despite that being the "letter" of the rule, the main point of
> concern to me was and is that NAS and its owners, including Jon
> Trulson and others, are still in violation of the Cygwin terms by
> offering (distributing) a binary that includes the cygwin1.dll
> file.
>

   I own/admin the website, yes.  The cygwin NAS package (or any
   others) are not hosted here though, as I do not have the internet
   bandwidth to support such distribution.

   Nicolas provides the NAS/cygwin binary package on his site.  I do
   not provide these since I do not use windows as my primary OS.

> This is a plain violation of Cygwin's license since it clearly
> states that inclusion of cygwin1.dll or libcygwin.a in a binary
> distribution of 3rd party software requires that third party to
> adhere to the terms of the GPL, meaning that the source to cygwin
> itself must be made available by that 3rd party (NAS). It would

   How would I/Nicolas make cygwin source available?  That's your job.
   There are a few links on the website pointing to your project.  NAS
   source (that builds under cygwin), is of course available.
   Something I suspect you finally figured out last night.

   Cygwin has not been modified in anyway to support NAS AFAIK, so
   exactly what source code are we (Nicolas and/or I) to make
   available that isn't already available?

> also have been simple common courtesy to ensure that the binary
> distribution of software (NAS) which uses and is linked to Cygwin
> software (in order to operate under MS Windows) make note of the
> Cygwin ownership of that part of the binary program and the rights
> of the user to acquire that software source code under the terms of
> the GPL, from the supplier of the binary.
>

   Ok... (Sorry, I am still trying to figure out what your real problem
   is here.  Still).

   So your issue now is that Nicolas should provide some kind of README
   or something that acknowleges the includion of the cygwin library,
   and a URL in which users can get the full thing if they wish?

   If so, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

   I do not understand why you think some kind of nefarious plot is
   being perpetrated against you by NAS.

> Furthermore, it is completely discourteous and abusive of NAS, to
> Cygwin's maintainer community, to distribute such a binary without
> offering support to users for it, making clear that support from
> Cygwin and its Community cannot be expected (since it is not Cygwin
> that the end user is obtaining the binary library from). In

   I was not aware that you were receiving support requests for
   NAS... Are you?  If so, send them to the list.  Of course it is not
   reasonable for you to provide support for NAS.

> addition, the inclusion of the cygwin1.dll file in the binary dist
> being provided by NAS on that page is detrimental to any end user
> that in the future decides to install Cygwin properly to their
> system. No warning of that fact is included in the binary
> distribution files being provided under the aegis of NAS.
>

   Ok, so you want a readme or something then.  I have no problem with
   that, but Nicolas is the one who will need to do that for the
   windows package, not me.  Yes, I guess I am once again, evading
   responsibility for things I am not responsible for.  Sorry.

> I'll let the continued denials of responsibility by Jon Trulson,
> starting with the denial that he's got any responsibility for
> binary software distributed from the web page that has his name on
> it (as the sole contact person / responsible party) be noted
> without further comment, other than to say that even if it was

   Did you even go to Nicolas's website?  Maybe he's got a contact
   address somewhere on it?

> supposed by him that it falls outside the legal realm (gives him an
> "out" to avoid taking responsibility), it is splitting hairs and
> just goes to character (or lack thereof).
>
> I know how to admit when I've been mistaken on points of fact. As
> for adopting a sharp tone when I see someone slyly trying to evade
> responsibility for exploitatively abusing other people's
> programming and support work, and evade legal oblgations under the
> GPL Copyleft, I don't apologize for that.
>

-- 
Jon Trulson
mailto:jon at radscan.com 
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
"No Kill I" -Horta