On May 17 00:15, Lapo Luchini wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > >I've just read the BSDPL finally and I see that it tries to > >impose itself on any distribution which contains a binary which is > >licensed in this fashion. So, as was hinted at earlier in the thread, > >this makes the license viral. So, you're right. We can't use it since > >including it would change the licensing of the entire distribution. > > > But is "minimal patching ni order to port" considered distributing a > "dreivative work" or a "binary"? > > Anyway, as far as I understood from the source on opensource.org ML, the > author didn't really mean to mean that "that way", so I could ask the > author himself if he can personally allow an exception for cases such as > this one? > If that could help, or it wouldn't help anyway?
It's a bit dangerous to rely on the author saying "but I didn't mean it that way". Probably he would have to change the license to include some explicit wording about this situation. Asking can't hurt, though. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
