Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.1.20011019200410.00aa6308@64.71.142.4>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:05:22 -0700
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Peter Kennard <peterk AT livingwork DOT com>
Subject: re: propagation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


Pardon formatting clipped from HTML archive search

 >A license warning: unless you develop the code for these functions in a
 >"cleanroom" manner -- ie. by inspecting only the documentation and
 >registry entries themselves, without reference to the existing cygwin
 >code -- then your implementations will be "derived works" of Red Hat's
 >cygwin.  Therefore, there will be messy copyright ownership issues.


I understand this and some provision needs to be made for it - actually one
reason I prefer BSD type license and it variants if the desire is to
promote a standard.  (see http://www.qubesoft.com for something I've been
working on)


What would be good from cygnus is to have an official "shared standard"
statement on specificly how the mount system is to be handled in the
registry and the algorythim for a search. GPL is a good thing in many ways
but when trying to unify an environment which is best as a support system
or "market maker" creating an interoperable economy of information sharing
between both commercial and non-commercial entities, it has it's limitations.


I would want a "Public Domain" reference version built to encourage it's
adoption by BSD, GPL, and commercial products so as to promote the shared
resource and allow cygwin products to leverage themselves by being able to
more easily control and script all available modules since they may easily
become compliant.


A license warning: unless you develop the code for these functions in a
"cleanroom" manner -- ie. by inspecting only the documentation and
registry entries themselves, without reference to the existing cygwin
code -- then your implementations will be "derived works" of Red Hat's
cygwin.  Therefore, there will be messy copyright ownership issues.


However, those messy issues can (probably) be avoided if your
implementations are released under the GPL (actually, this MAY be
required, but IANAL).  Assuming that your implementations are GPL, then
they would be linked together with the client applications your are
trying to proselytize -- meaning that they would have to ALSO be GPL.


This is not a bad thing, IMO -- but it is something of which you should
be aware.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/