Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: cygwin License related Query....
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:10:14 -0600
Message-ID: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKMEMGDJAA.g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20021218200314.GA15823@redhat.com>
Importance: Normal

> >Well, perhaps, but I think those two paragraphs are the clearest and
> >most concise "layman's terms" explanation of Cygwin licensing I've read
> >to date.  All it needs is a "No, a link to the Cygwin site won't cut it"
> >paragraph and I'd say it would make a good FAQ.
>
> My response was tailored to the requirements that were presented.  It is
> not that simple.

No, I know.  My point was that this question seems to come up rather frequently,
and the answer is more or less always "Here's the licensing terms<link>, and
here's what it basically means: <several paragraph explanation>".  Replacing
<several paragraph explanation> with <link> seems like a win for everyone.

>  I wouldn't want someone making the decision to release
> a cygwin product based on a FAQ entry.
>

Well, I see that there already is a FAQ entry on this:
http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC135
But I'd say your explanation is as I said more concise and clear.  But whatever.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.




--
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/