Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/25/02:06:08
> From: Eric Blake
>
> Gary - you should know better.
No I shouldn't.
> Top-posting reformatted, to
> avoid http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU,
OMG I did top-post! How the ^*& did that happen? My sincerest apologies.
> and raw email munged;
> you really should http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR.
>
I still have yet to hear an offical judgement on whether this applies to
addresses of the actual lists. I see no reason for it to. And I think we
can both agree that in any case, the top-posting is the far more heinous
crime.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
> ^^^^ ^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > I have a w95 qemu image which I can use for testing, yes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Excellent, I'll try and get something together tonight.
> > >
> > Ok Sam, give it a try:
> >
> >
> http://home.att.net/~g.r.vansickle/cygwin/SetupInstaller/SetupInstalle
> > r.exe
> >
> > This installer contains the latest released Cygwin setup.exe
> > (2.510.2.2) and msvcrt.dll version 6.0.9782.0, which AFAIK is the
> > latest redistributable available. It won't overwrite a
> newer version of either the exe or the DLL.
> > Works great for me on XP here.
> >
> > There'd be source for setup.exe 2.510.2.2 here as well if
> it was here:
> > http://www.cygwin.com/setup/ or somewhere else that I could find it.
>
> setup.exe is under the GPL.
Yep. I GPLed a bunch of it myself. You're welcome.
> In order for you to distribute a
> version of setup.exe on your website, you must also offer to
> distribute the sources you used to build it. I also hope you
> didn't violate the GPL by including msvcrt.dll in your
> binary;
As do I, since that would truly cause a rift in the spacetime continuum.
> but I will leave that to an actual lawyer to
> determine if you are in violation.
>
Meh, don't waste your money. Three words: Mere aggregation clause.
Since we're getting all licencey today, allow me to point out something any
one of us should have caught long ago: setup.exe as distributed on the
Cygwin web site does not include a copy of the GPL, which, while IANAL, I
believe is a violation of the GPL.
> By my understanding of the GPL, a link on your site pointing
> to
> http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/setup/?cvsroot=cy
> gwin-apps
> is inadequate -
Which is why I put no such link on my site.
> by publishing the binary yourself, you are
> now obligated to also publish the snapshot of the source you
> used to build your binary.
>
Which, as I indicated in my original email, would already be done if I could
locate said source. However, it is not where this page <
http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html> indicates it is ("Source
code for setup.exe is available from http://cygwin.com/setup/." - no, it
isn't, at least not for 2.510.2.2). Nor is there any identifiable tag in
cvs for it. I would be most grateful if you could point me in the direction
of the source distribution on the Cygwin site for this particular setup.exe
build, or even the appropriate cvs tag, so that both my site and the Cygwin
Setup webpage can be corrected immediately.
In the interim, I shall once again, but perhaps more clearly this time,
exercise my responsibilities under Paragraph 3 Subsection c) of the GPL
Version 2 by making the following statement: "I received the software in
question in binary format, with the offer of obtaining the sources from
http://cygwin.com/setup/. Unfortunately, as the sources are not in fact
located there, nor anywhere else that I have been able to locate, you as the
receiver of this unmodified binary have as much access to its source code as
I do."
Meanwhile Eric, feel free to give my awesome SetupInstaller a try.
> --
> Eric Blake
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
--
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 -