Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/06/16/09:39:41
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:10:48PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > We don't distribute Cygwin under the 3b clause so that doesn't count
> > > here at all.
> > This was my point. I couldn't find this on the web page; I'd like to see
> > it mentioned (please point me to the text if I overlooked it).
> It's not there. Seriously, did you see a *written* offer from Red Hat,
> to give any third party, [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the
> corresponding source code [...]?
Erm, let me express myself more clearly. I've meant mentioning the
exclusion of 3b, not its inclusion.
Suppose the following scenario: a company wishes to distribute an
application that uses cygwin1.dll. It reads
http://cygwin.com/licensing.html and http://cygwin.com/COPYING and
decides to proceed according to section 3b. It prepares two CD-ROMs, one
with the binaries and one with the sources (both for the application and
cygwin1.dll). Only the first one is distributed (with a source code
offer); the second is available on request.
This is a real case; what I fail to see is, how the legal dept. should
know that the section 3b of GPL is foreclosed?
Thanks in advance,
Baurjan.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -