Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id: <200005031432.IAA08772@chorus>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 08:32:43 -0600 (MDT)
From: "13mb80000-HallM(10053584)37x10" <marcus AT bighorn DOT dr DOT lucent DOT com>
Reply-To: "13mb80000-HallM(10053584)37x10" <marcus AT bighorn DOT dr DOT lucent DOT com>
Subject: Re: Things you can do with Cygwin
To: KendallB AT scitechsoft DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com
Cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.1 CDE Version 1.2.1 SunOS 5.6 sun4m sparc 
Content-Type: text
X-Sun-Text-Type: ascii


> > If that were the case, then a GPL'ed X-server would simply not be
> > suitable for running anything but GPL code. Cygwin/XFree is one such
> > server.
> 
> No, because they'd be two separate works.  If you modified the X
> server to use a non-standard protocol, and wrote a GPL'd program that
> required that non-standard protocol, then it would be one work.  But
> since a GPL'd program that uses the standard X protocol could use your
> X server, or any other X server, they would be separate works and the
> GPL on the application would not effect the X server.

I have a problem with this logic, though.

Suppose that the non-standard protocol of the modified X server was
subsequently adopted as a new standard and multiple implementations
were created so that then the original program that requires the
originally non-standard (but now standard) protocol could work with
several different implementations of the X server (now a Y server?).
Does that mean that the two pieces are now separate works?  But the
coding was completed before the new standard was accepted and the
other implementations were created, so what was originally one work
now becomes two works because of independent invention by other people
and no change at all of the original code.  This doesn't seem to be
right, so it would seem that the original assertion was flawed.

So, I think that there must be some other criteria for separating works
other than the existance of alternative implementations and standard
protocols.  I can't say quite what the criteria should be, though...

marcus hall

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com