delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:10:15PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >> Do we really need to install other UNIX-like utilities? That will be >> very confusing for users, I think. Can't ksh just use the existing >utilties? > >Remember ksh has that in-process execution thing, where certain commands >are replaced by internally loadable modules...the stuff Robert was >talking about two weeks ago. True, but there is no reason to call "ls.exe" by the same name in another directory. It could be called "ksh-ls.exe" or or ls.so or something. >>>Would it be OK to create a dummy -src package that just contains a text >>>file (maye be with a suspicious name) which refers to the AT&T software >>>download site? > >Absolutely not. We must distribute the sources OURSELVES in order to >comply with our own cygwin GPL license! Cygwin doesn't really GPL infect anything. If the source license that ksh93 is distributed with allows downloading from a web site, then that's fine, so there is no reason to be GPL compliant. What matters is if the source license is compliant under the exception that Cygwin provides. cgf
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |