On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 08:29:06AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I think there is very small chance of that. IIRC, some of that code is >>straight out of the cygwin DLL itself. >> >>I think that anyone who had studied the cygwin path handling code would >>have a tough time proving that there was no "taintedness" if they tried >>to produce a library under a different license. > >Crud. Well I suppose from a code reuse standpoint it would still make >sense to factor out that stuff so that setup and cygcheck (and anything >else GPL) can share it.
Remember that cygcheck and strace are already sharing the code in path.cc. It's not clear to me what more needs to be done except possibly handle symlinks. >But without a relicensed version it still means that 3PPs that want to >gracefully distribute Cygwin stuff have to write all the mount table >stuff themselves (or run /bin/mount, which I guess is the mantra >anyway.) ...or run cygpath. FWIW, the basic problem with Red Hat these days is getting them to pay any attention to cygwin at all. The corporate VP in legal who used to be at least somewhat responsive to my cygwin queries has moved on to other concerns within the company and, from what I've heard, no one else seems inclined to answer questions. You know that cygwin runs on Windoze (or is it Window$?) after all. So, even if there was a chance that someone in Red Hat could make the recommendation to release the path.cc source code under a "looser" license, it is extremely unlikely that you could get an official corporate response on the matter. What fun. cgf -- 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/
