Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/01/11/09:17:04
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:53:07AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
> > 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 $SHELL patch.
> I'm imitating the AST function pathshell() there.
> Now, since Corinna has made clear to me that there's no real super user on Cygwin, half of the patch is nonsense anyway and can be removed.
If we just left out that patch we won't have a problem.
>
> Two other patches mimic UWIN behavior. That can not be a problem, since Cygwin also has adopted the UWIN symbolics links.
Mimicing isn't a problem as long as you didn't look into the
sources and get the idea from there. If you just looked how
it works from examining the behaviour of the binaries, that's
ok.
> I found something interesting in the archives, see http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-02/msg00417.html. He didn't need a release from AT&T, did he?
>
There's a difference. He didn't contribute to Cygwin beyond
May 2000 and his contributions weren't AST or U/Win related
at all.
Licensing issues are really a big *@#$ but we have to be careful.
We may not even take any code which smells GPL. It would infect
the Cygwin Library License. For that reason we're most happy
about completely self-written code or copies/ports of BSD licensed
source.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
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 -