Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:44:38 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: So, *should* I go back to distributing the mingw/w32api sources in the cygwin source tarball?
Message-ID:	<20030208234438.GG9272@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20030208164444 DOT GA8989 AT redhat DOT com> <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKOEFKDMAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKOEFKDMAA.g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.1i

On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 02:59:28PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> I don't like the thought of duplication here but I guess I've finally
>> grown weary of the bug reports from people who can't build from the
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> sources available via tarball.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Isn't this in violation of the GPL?  If so, isn't the answer "yes"?

I think it's somewhat of a gray area since the w32api is sort of the
system include area.  Or at least that's how I've always rationalized it.

I'm surprised that this is the first time anyone has brought this up in
all of the agonizing time when cygwin wouldn't build because it needed
a newer w32api.

cgf

- Raw text -