Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:13:29 -0500
Message-Id:	<200011122213.RAA14479@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning:	envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
CC:	moshier AT mediaone DOT net, bowman AT math DOT ualberta DOT ca
In-reply-to:	<20001112135708.A29567@redhat.com> (message from Christopher
	Faylor on Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:57:08 -0500)
Subject:	Re: long double support in cygwin
References:	<20001111232756 DOT A26752 AT redhat DOT com> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 20 DOT 0011120859210 DOT 2531-100000 AT moshier DOT ne DOT mediaone DOT net> <20001112135708 DOT A29567 AT redhat DOT com>

> If the code has been assigned to the FSF and is now owned by the FSF, we
> can't use it.  IANAL.

The FSF always grants back an unlimited license to the original
author.  Check the paperwork - I bet he can still re-license his
original work.

> The LGPL still requires that source code be distributed if you are
> *providing the library* does it not?  If I try to sell you a copy of
> glibc, I will have to provide you with the sources.  If I sell you a
> copy of a program linked with glibc, I don't have to give you the
> sources for glibc.  It's a subtle distinction, but this is why we
> can't use it.

Not quite.  If you built a problem with glibc (or cygwin, under the
LGPL), you are *always* required to distribute the sources for the
LGPL'd components, and whatever else it takes to rebuild the
application at least from those sources (normally, this means a .o for
your app).  The LGPL *still* requires that the user be able to change
the LGPL'd components and rebuild the app.  It just doesn't require
that you be able to rebuild the app from *its* sources.

Under *no* circumstances does the LGPL allow you to not have to
[eventually] redistribute the sources for the LGPL'd component.

> As to whether the author of the code can reassign the code for use
> in cygwin, that is another issue.  I don't know if John's statement
> (quoted from another message) is adequate or not:

It is probably not, for reasons I stated in another message.

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

- Raw text -