Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:13:34 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ksh on cygwin
Message-ID: <20020111171334.GG24106@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <200201111353 DOT g0BDrFN14564 AT dymwsm12 DOT mailwatch DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200201111353.g0BDrFN14564@dymwsm12.mailwatch.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:53:07AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
>> And, I'm sorry but it really looks to me like you'd need a 
>> release from
>> AT&T indicating that any patches you provided to us are 
>> unemcumbered by
>> this license.  I don't see how you can sign away the rights to any
>> patches that you make if you have been working on code that is covered
>> by this license.
>
>Actually, having reviewed my patches, it's only patch based on AST -
>the $SHELL patch.  I'm imitating the AST function pathshell() there.
>Now, since Corinna has made clear to me that there's no real super user
>on Cygwin, half of the patch is nonsense anyway and can be removed.

So, we've all agreed that we don't want those patches.

I also am not interested in any of the "automatically add .exe" patches.
We've been over this ground many times in the past.

Sorry.

>Two other patches mimic UWIN behavior.  That can not be a problem,
>since Cygwin also has adopted the UWIN symbolics links.
>
>I found something interesting in the archives, see
>http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-02/msg00417.html.  He didn't need
>a release from AT&T, did he?

You know, I was waiting for that.  The patterns are so predictable it's
scary.  I think this whole free will thing that is so much bally hooed is
really just a crock.

The cygwin mailing list is replete with Pavlovian responses.  Person has
problem installing.  Person immediately fires off standard email to
cygwin AT cygwin DOT com.

cgf says blah, person responds blech.  There is never any variation.

In this case, I'm trying to be careful about licensing, so scurry,
scurry, scurry, Aha! Here's a potential case (maybe) where cgf *wasn't*
careful.  I'll trip him up now!

I don't know why you found this exercise useful or what your expected
response was other than to irritate.  If that was the expected response,
you succeeded.

Anyway, if you don't think that your patches are encumbered then, that's
ok with me.  Send in a release to Red Hat.  Make sure that you also have
a release from your employer if you are not self-employed.  I would *really*
like to get something official from AT&T if you were actually working for
them, too.

cgf

--
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/