X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:59:01 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Contributing license information? Message-ID: <20111021085901.GG13505@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4E4DB7AC DOT 7070702 AT cisra DOT canon DOT com DOT au> <20110819120318 DOT GB2506 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4E9F9A2A DOT 2060806 AT cisra DOT canon DOT com DOT au> <20111020073807 DOT GC23092 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4EA0D2AB DOT 30402 AT cisra DOT canon DOT com DOT au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EA0D2AB.30402@cisra.canon.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Oct 21 13:02, Luke Kendall wrote: > Can I ask a related question: for the few shell scripts and /etc > files provided in base-files: what license are they under? The > package contains lots of licenses, as we've been discussing, but I > couldn't find any indication of which license applies to the actual > non-license files in base-files itself! Isn't that hard on the verge of nit-picking? These are simple scripts. Their Linux brothers and sisters are under PD so I think it makes much sense to define the Cygwin files as PD, too. David, that's ok with you? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple