On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:10:48PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > We don't distribute Cygwin under the 3b clause so that doesn't count > > > here at all. > > This was my point. I couldn't find this on the web page; I'd like to see > > it mentioned (please point me to the text if I overlooked it). > It's not there. Seriously, did you see a *written* offer from Red Hat, > to give any third party, [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the > corresponding source code [...]?
Erm, let me express myself more clearly. I've meant mentioning the exclusion of 3b, not its inclusion. Suppose the following scenario: a company wishes to distribute an application that uses cygwin1.dll. It reads http://cygwin.com/licensing.html and http://cygwin.com/COPYING and decides to proceed according to section 3b. It prepares two CD-ROMs, one with the binaries and one with the sources (both for the application and cygwin1.dll). Only the first one is distributed (with a source code offer); the second is available on request. This is a real case; what I fail to see is, how the legal dept. should know that the section 3b of GPL is foreclosed? Thanks in advance, Baurjan. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
