On Jan 26 22:21, Lapo Luchini wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote, on 2005-05-16: > > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking > >> against the Cygwin DLL. If you do that with an application which has > >> a non-approved OSS license, you're infringing the Cygwin license if > >> you don't GPL the code. But if you GPL the code, you're infringing the > >> BSDPL license. So I don't see a satisfactory way out. > > I thought that there was some kind of strange clause in the license > > which allowed closed source distribution (which there is) which wouldn't > > be a problem for us, since we don't distribute things that way. But, > > nevermind. 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. > I wonder how did Debian people do, or hopefully the license is changed > in version 4.3?? > > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/utils/bsdiff > > Well, in fact it is! Version 4.3 seems to be quite similiar to 4.2, > /except/ it is distributed under the BSD license! > > As this diff clearly states: > [...] > I guess I can finally produce a legally acceptable package? ;-)
Yes, but you need 5 votes. Given the incredible activity of voting or, worse, reviewing of packages, I doubt that you will get the package in. Just if nobody remembers here anymore: ============================================================ Every Maintainer Can (And Should) Review Packages! Every Maintainer Can Vote! ============================================================ Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat