> >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/
