This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
RE: Copyright [cgf, please comment]
- To: "'Harold Hunt'" <huntharo at msu dot edu>, Suhaib Siddiqi <ssiddiqi at inspirepharm dot com>
- Subject: RE: Copyright [cgf, please comment]
- From: Suhaib Siddiqi <ssiddiqi at inspirepharm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:45:55 -0400
- Cc: "'cygx'" <cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com>
=
> > That means you intentionally trying to avoid and walk around others
> > work? That itself is a copyright infringment, I just walk over to
> > my company Patent and TradeMark attorney in-house office.
> That is what he
> > told
> > me when he read your above paragraph. You ae
> intentiuonally taking my
> > prior work, walking around it to avoid my authorship?
>
> Better get a new company attorney :)
Silly. I think you need to read better and consult and get some advice
what you are talking :-) The attroney we had was attorney who prosecuted
several big coproration for copyright and trademark infringments and won
every single case.
>
> Have you ever read a book about DOS, UNIX, the X Window
> System, Windows, or
> even a dictionary? Well, then by the logic given above, you would be
> violating copyrights on everything you have ever written on this list.
I suggest you need to read I do not.
>
> My point, if it was not clear, was that reading a document on
> a particular
> topic does not forever ban you from writing on that very same topic.
Again vague and confusing sentences. :) I do not know why you are saying
something vague and confusing.
>
> > I see that is why on my several calls in the list that why
> points from
> > original FAQ which were important were missing? You got very
> > upset on that
> > and said it is a draft and they will be included. I thought you
> > sent a diff
> > file to Rob
> > and in one message you wrote you are working on to include it
> > but you never did.
>
> Right, because everything started getting nasty.
No one made it nasty. I raised questions and you got upset.
>
> I have intentions of covering some issues that may (and I'm
> being careful
> with the wording now that you're talking to attorneys :) be
> covered by your
> document at some point in the near future when I have time.
If we agree to include all the points, which we need because current FAQ
includes a lots of important aspects which youd so-called DRAFT does not
then we will post your FAQ, otherwise current FAQ will stay and yours
incomplete draft cannot be posted.
>
> > In its current form I DO NOT approve your FAQ to be posted at
> > Cygwin/XFree86
> > server.
> > Sorry about it.
>
> Why are we back to this?
Because I do not want to sit here and answer questions which users asked
over
last two years and I put them in FAQ. If everything is included, then YES
I will gladly post your FAQ and your contributions will be appreciated
and acknowledged.
>
> Did I just say, "hey, post my draft FAQ on the web site,
> now!"? Did I ever
> say to post my draft FAQ on the website? Nope, I sure
> didn't, because it is
> a draft.
>
> From Merriam-Webster:
> draft - noun - 5.c. a preliminary sketch, outline, or version
> <the author's
> first draft> <a draft treaty>
>
> You'd have to be kidding me if you honestly think that I
> would want to post
> a preliminary outline in place of the existing FAQ.
Ok, can you create a diff file of your FAQ against current FAQ and mail it
to me
so I can pass on to ROB and get everything included? You will retain the
"authroship".
I have told Rob to keep authorship to Harold. I do not care about
authorship. It is not
an issue for me. I do care that I do not sit here and answer the emails
from users
with questions which I already put in current FAQ. If you can PLEASE create
a diff file
send it to me or to Rob directly. You FAQ qill go online. I request you
change the lines
Copyright (c)2000 Harold Hunt to Authorship (c)2000 Harold Hunt. I hope
this should not be
a big deal for you. The document is already under GFDL which is acceptable
by Red Hat.
To make it clear again, I already have over 40 puiblications and I do not
need an authorship
of a FAQ, but I do not have time to answer emails about questions which had
been covered
already in current FAQ. If you can resolve these issues with Rob directly I
will give him a
GO AHEAD to post your FAQ. IS THAT FAIR ENOUGH FOR YOU?
Thanks
Suhaib
>
> Harold
>