Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date:	Wed, 3 May 2000 10:47:29 -0400
Message-Id:	<200005031447.KAA25295@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	marcus AT bighorn DOT dr DOT lucent DOT com
CC:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200005031432.IAA08772@chorus> (marcus@bighorn.dr.lucent.com)
Subject:	Re: Things you can do with Cygwin
References:	<200005031432 DOT IAA08772 AT chorus>

> Does that mean that the two pieces are now separate works?
>
> So, I think that there must be some other criteria for separating works
> other than the existance of alternative implementations and standard
> protocols.  I can't say quite what the criteria should be, though...

It wouldn't matter.  You can't retroactively un-violate the GPL.  The
first time you distributed the two programs without full source, you
violate the GPL.  *If* later they become two works, then *further*
distribution would be OK.

As for the criteria, it's simple.  A court would decide.  Otherwise,
it's really rather pointless to try to find such borderline cases,
unless you *like* going to court just to split hairs.  If you don't
know where that fine line is, just stay clear of it.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -