Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: Subject: RE: cygwin License related Query.... Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:10:14 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021218200314.GA15823@redhat.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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, and here's what it basically means: ". Replacing with 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/