Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/07/20/21:28:06
On Thursday, July 20, 2000 06:06 PM Chris Faylor wrote:
> I get a little uncomfortable when I see words like "freely
> distributable". ... Pointing to the cygwin web site and
> saying "get [the source] over there" is not adequate.
Early on, I had made this mistaken assumption. I thought we incurred the
obligation to distribute the source only if we modified the source and
built/distributed our own binaries. That's the major reason we didn't want
to diddle with the source, and why we hoped the problems would be fixed by
the originator (cygnus). [BTW - thanks for the first two fixes.]
Then more recently, I read the GPL and decided that we would be obliged to
distribute the source with the binaries even if we didn't change the source.
Then we didn't want to diddle the source because we didn't want to take on
the additional responsibility of maintaining our own version of make --
that's not the business we're in. So again, we were hoping we might get the
fixes from cygnus.
It's always nice to satisfy one's requirements with little cost/effort. I'm
disappointed that that didn't happen in this case. But I'm also very aware
of the fact that most often, we have to sacrifice something to get what we
want/need. It remains to be seen whether my company decides the benefit is
worth the cost, or not. I hope they'll let me take a whack at fixing it.
That seems less costly than pursuing some other option (especially at this
stage), and I/we would be "giving something back".
Anyway, we want to make sure we do the right thing vis-a-vis the GPL. I
intend to follow-up on the issue with the people at <info at cygnus dot com>
if needed.
Regards,
Scott Carter
Software Engineer
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -