Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 17:13:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200011122213.RAA14479@envy.delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f From: DJ Delorie To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com CC: moshier AT mediaone DOT net, bowman AT math DOT ualberta DOT ca In-reply-to: <20001112135708.A29567@redhat.com> (message from Christopher Faylor on Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:57:08 -0500) Subject: Re: long double support in cygwin References: <20001111232756 DOT A26752 AT redhat DOT com> <20001112135708 DOT A29567 AT redhat DOT com> > If the code has been assigned to the FSF and is now owned by the FSF, we > can't use it. IANAL. The FSF always grants back an unlimited license to the original author. Check the paperwork - I bet he can still re-license his original work. > The LGPL still requires that source code be distributed if you are > *providing the library* does it not? If I try to sell you a copy of > glibc, I will have to provide you with the sources. If I sell you a > copy of a program linked with glibc, I don't have to give you the > sources for glibc. It's a subtle distinction, but this is why we > can't use it. Not quite. If you built a problem with glibc (or cygwin, under the LGPL), you are *always* required to distribute the sources for the LGPL'd components, and whatever else it takes to rebuild the application at least from those sources (normally, this means a .o for your app). The LGPL *still* requires that the user be able to change the LGPL'd components and rebuild the app. It just doesn't require that you be able to rebuild the app from *its* sources. Under *no* circumstances does the LGPL allow you to not have to [eventually] redistribute the sources for the LGPL'd component. > As to whether the author of the code can reassign the code for use > in cygwin, that is another issue. I don't know if John's statement > (quoted from another message) is adequate or not: It is probably not, for reasons I stated in another message. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com