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:	Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:27:11 -0400
From:	Mike Schiraldi <raldi AT research DOT netsol DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Licensing
Message-ID:	<20010409122711.F24963@research.netsol.com>
References:	<20010409103454 DOT C24963 AT research DOT netsol DOT com> <200104091610 DOT MAA00456 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.16i
In-Reply-To:	<200104091610.MAA00456@envy.delorie.com>; from dj@delorie.com on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:10:24PM -0400

> source definition either.  If one chose to make extensive
> modifications to make it work under Cygwin, and did not make those
> modifications available in an OSD way, then the resulting binary does
> not qualify for the exception.

Actually, we're not making any changes to either OpenLDAP or Cygwin. We just
want to link the two into the same executable. As far as i can tell from
some amateur legal research, because the OpenLDAP license is not
GPL-compatible, it would not be legal to do this without your special
clause.

So i just wanted to make sure that using OpenLDAP in this way qualifies for
the clause.

-- 
Mike Schiraldi
Verisign Applied Research

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -