| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 05:01:41PM -0600, Scott Carter wrote: >Thanks for the replies. > >You're right of course. FREE software is offered on a take-it-or-leave-it >basis. > >You've given me some ammo that I can now take to my "management" and make an >argument for either a) investing a little more time to try to get this >version of make working like we want, or b) using something else. We already >looked at the most obvious "something else" options and eliminated them -- >we can't freely distribute nmake, and trying to support a dozen different >IDE's is a nightmare. We chose gnu make because it's freely distributable >and widely used/understood (as much a defacto standard as anything I'm aware >of). And we moved to the cygwin port because the development platforms we >support are WinNT/98, our users aren't necessarily computer sophisticated, >and we don't want to push any more unix-style notation on them than we have >to (yeah, I know -- I prefer unix too). I get a little uncomfortable when I see words like "freely distributable". You're probably painfully aware of this but if you are going to be distributing make or cygwin you also have to be making the sources available under the GPL. Pointing to the cygwin web site is and saying "get them over there" is not adequate. If this is not clear, you really should have someone in authority read the GPL so that you can be certain that you are in compliance. Apologies if you already know this but many people seem to be under the impression that as long as Red Hat makes the source available, they're all set. That is not the case. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |