X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:51:24 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Interference between instances on MS-Windows Message-ID: <20070706135124.GC24379@ednor> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <014601c7bf14$4ba90e10$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <014f01c7bf1b$b352aab0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <015d01c7bf21$be3d41a0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <468E361B.8070608@byu.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <468E361B.8070608@byu.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 06:31:23AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >Although in GPLv3, there is a new clause in section 2 that does not have a >[snip] > >IANAL, but [snip...] I'd hoped that this rathole discussion would disappear but apparently it's hard to resist the lure of the "IANAL but". The OP has already indicated that he has no intention of having anyone debug his program for him so his choice of license or opinions about the license are not important. I would appreciate it if we could stop opining about the legalities of the GPL since these kind of discussions are rarely fruitful and this one has actually veered off topic for the list. What we really need to see is source code not legal opinions. (and it looks like source code did indeed show up eventually later in this thread) 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/