Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<200201111353.g0BDrFN14564@dymwsm12.mailwatch.com>
From:	"Fleischer, Karsten (K.)" <kfleisc1 AT getrag-ford DOT com>
To:	"'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: ksh on cygwin
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:53:07 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.15)
HOP-COUNT:	1
X-MAILWATCH-INSTANCEID:	0102000ad814c0ca-340f-4dec-9ca4-e03a8ecc3392
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	11 Jan 2002 13:53:17.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[5287EC20:01C19AA7]

> And, I'm sorry but it really looks to me like you'd need a 
> release from
> AT&T indicating that any patches you provided to us are 
> unemcumbered by
> this license.  I don't see how you can sign away the rights to any
> patches that you make if you have been working on code that is covered
> by this license.

Actually, having reviewed my patches, it's only patch based on AST - the $SHELL patch.
I'm imitating the AST function pathshell() there.
Now, since Corinna has made clear to me that there's no real super user on Cygwin, half of the patch is nonsense anyway and can be removed.

Two other patches mimic UWIN behavior. That can not be a problem, since Cygwin also has adopted the UWIN symbolics links.

I found something interesting in the archives, see http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-02/msg00417.html. He didn't need a release from AT&T, did he?


--
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 -