Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:15:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen L Moshier <moshier AT mediaone DOT net>
X-Sender: moshier AT moshier DOT ne DOT mediaone DOT net
Reply-To: moshier AT mediaone DOT net
To: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, "John C. Bowman" <bowman AT math DOT ualberta DOT ca>
Subject: Re: long double support in cygwin
In-Reply-To: <20001112135708.A29567@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0011121552060.2696-100000@moshier.ne.mediaone.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


>  we have to own what goes into newlib/cygwin or the
> licenses of the source has to allow distribution of binaries without
> source code so that cygwin1.dll is encumbered.

In Bowman's case the library *is* source code, since the whole thing
is a text header file.  I don't see how your legal question would
apply to inline-math.h.

For my own part, I think that anyone can go to the internet and pick
up the original source code, so the question is not a vitally
important issue any more.  It does not bother me that people
distribute such library binaries without source code.  I probably
would not be inclined to assign free software to Red Hat, though,
because Red Hat is a commercial company.


> I again suggest that you take this discussion to the newlib mailing
> list.

OK, the inquiry has been redirected to newlib.


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