Trademark rights and copyright for "Cygwin" and logo.

Dave Korn
Fri May 11 19:24:00 GMT 2007

On 11 May 2007 19:34, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote:

> "Dave Korn" writes:
>> On 11 May 2007 18:25, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote:
>> [snip]
>> You need to get it in writing, from Redhat's legal dept.
> Fine. Even links to the Cygwin FAQ (if it had such a section touching
> on the topic)? I'm a tad surprised.

  If the FAQ said anything on the subject, I would have told you so.  Because
it doesn't, I didn't.  How much simpler could it be?

  Of course, you could always read the FAQ yourself.  It's all there in plain
view on the website.  There are no secret hidden bits.

>> Nothing else is worth your time and effort.
> What "is worth my time and effort" is my concern only and I beg that
> you kindly leave that to my judgment alone.

  If you don't want advice, why on earth are you asking for it?  I was merely
observing that if someone on this list tells you "Yes, this is ok", you have
no way of knowing if they are correct.  Similarly, if someone on the list
tells you "No, that's not ok", you also have no way of knowing if they are
correct.  Finally, whatever anyone on this list tells you, is not binding on
RedHat, who are the only people whose opinion has any validity.

  It may be only my opinion that gathering unconfirmed and unguaranteed
information that you would only have to discard and go find from a verifiable
source anyway is a waste of time, but I'm at a loss to imagine how it could
possibly justify your time and effort.

>> To the best of my knowledge there has never been any discussion
>> before of anything remotely like this issue on the mailing list.
> I'm a bit surprised: 

> Strange that the question never turned up.

  Well it didn't, and if you aren't going to bother believing the answer to
your question when it is given to you, why bother asking it?

>> I think the only thing you could possibly receive by asking the list
>> is uninformed speculation from people who are neither lawyers nor
>> speak for red hat.
> (Well, my opinion of people at the list isn't so low as yours, but ...)

  I don't have a low opinion of the people on this list.  Saying that they are
not lawyers is a fact, and speculation about legal matters from someone who
has not studied law is by definition uninformed.  The emotional cast you
perceive in that unremarkable statement of fact is entirely in your

> statements permissions, whatever. I really wonder where people get the
> impression that you can't get information about sources of legal
> information from anybody else but a lawyer. 

  Nobody says that.  It's just that information from other sources has no
guarantee of accuracy and comes with no kind of indemnity should it turn out
to be incorrect.

> You can, and wether you
> get your information from a lawyer or not, you're still under the
> obligation to verify the information.

  Well exactly: anything you find out from a non-legal source, you have to go
and ask a lawyer *anyway*.

  Or you could just save your time and go straight to the lawyer, since that
makes the first step redundant.  That is why I offered the advice that it
would not be worth your time and effort.

> Lawyerdom didn't even come into my question: The only people that can
> give binding PERMISSION to use, are redhat (lawyers or not). But
> information where to possibly find public statements (by Redhat) on
> that topic, can be give by anyone and it wouldn't legally invalidate a
> document if I got refered to it by a raving lunatic.

  Yes, and if there was any such information, I and everyone else would have
told you it.  But there isn't, and so we didn't, and now you are raving like a
lunatic, because you appear to have the paranoid belief that there IS such
information and everybody is withholding it from you.  


>> That would almost certainly be /less/ worthwhile to you than hearing
>> nothing at all.
> Well, that helped a bit, a step in the right direction. That -- as far
> as the cygwin project members know -- there is no known document on
> the logo+trademark policy and that one has to negotiate with Redhat on
> an individual basis.

  Yes, that is exactly what you were told from the very first reply.  What
else were you expecting?  Every single person on the list to each reply saying
"Well, I don't know anything about what your asking"?  That would be
ludicrous.  Nobody is withholding information from you, it's that nobody HAS
any information.

> (And BTW: Yes it's worth my time, let that be my concern only. It's
> not that answers from corporations at issues like this are usually
> coming forward at blinding speed.)
> And again: Sad, that my wish to give fair attribution gives _me_ so
> much trouble now.

  No, it's your arrogant, suspicious-minded, paranoid, ill-mannered approach -
accusing everyone of maliciously not telling you what you wanted to know
rather than just accepting that the lack of a reply was because of lack of
information - that is giving you so much trouble.

Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list