Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/01/10/13:41:26
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 11:18:04AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
>>If you've actually looked at the UWIN sources, this is not enough.
>>IANAL either, but I believe that this means you've been tainted. That
>>means that we can't use your patches. Sorry.
>
>I've never had the chance to look at the UWIN sources. It's
>proprietary. As I said before, the UWIN developers explained the
>concepts verbally to me, no source code involved.
>
>The AST tools and libraries, which form the basis for the UWIN _tools_
>(not the UNIX emulation itself) are open source. I rewritten some
>things from those sources (but from memory).
>
>>I hope I am misinterpreting what you said incorrectly...
>
>:-P
I'm not sure but I don't think it matters if the sources are
proprietary. Maybe this is getting incredibly picky but if you adapted
algorithms from other non-GPL compliant programs then that is probably
an issue, too.
This wouldn't be an issue for the Berkeley license, though. I don't know
what the AST tools use for licensing.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -