Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:22:48 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock Message-ID: <20040415132247.GB3922@coe.bosbc.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <005d01c422e8$7c4a07c0$0200a8c0@em.noip.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 02:02:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Ah, but it's not a matter of it having no copyright, but of the >copyright existing and belonging to the FSF so that the GPL can be >enforced on the file. If you submit a completely PD bit of source to a >GPL project, other people can take that code, modify it and release it >as binaries without being obliged by the GPL to provide sources, >because they can claim they're working on your PD version rather than >any version distributed under GPL. IOW, making code PD makes it >impossible to apply and enforce the GPL to it. IIUIC. I really don't have to worry about this anymore, but I can't stop myself from making one comment: It's not the FSF in this case. It is Red Hat which needs the copyright assigment. GPLing a bit of code which is not assigned to Red Hat would make it inappropriate for Cygwin. cgf -- 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/