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, 17 Dec 2000 00:09:24 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: delete old version?
Message-ID:	<20001217000924.A10003@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20001217050647 DOT 6558 DOT qmail AT web114 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<20001217050647.6558.qmail@web114.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 09:06:47PM -0800

On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 09:06:47PM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> 
>> > The only thing I can see objectionable would be the time limit for source
>> > distribution; but, you would know better about that than I would.
>> 
>> There is no minimum time limit when you distribute the source with the
>> binary.  See GPL 3a.  You're thinking of GPL 3b, which requires a
>> *written* promise.  We can't do that with FTP.
>> 
>> If they didn't get the source when they downloaded the binary, we have
>> no further obligations to them.
>> 
>
>Ah, yes.  Then I suggest removal of the old directory as people really should
>upgrade if they want help.

Strong ditto.

I'd like to get rid of the B20 and B19 stuff in this process as well.  I'll
archive them somewhere but I would rather not keep them around as there still
seems to be a lot of confusion about B20.

cgf

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

- Raw text -