On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 04:46:24PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 11 13:09, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 02:10:42PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >On Apr 11 09:01, Peter Rosin wrote: >> >>The newlib license is liberal enough for RedHat to relicense it under >> >>their own terms? >> > >> >That's it, more or less. >> >> I have never seen how you can have it both ways, legally speaking. I >> was told not to worry about it when I was at Red Hat but no one ever >> gave me a convincing explanation. Since there are no assignments in >> newlib land, it just relies on BSD-like licensing. I don't see why >> Cygwin can't do the same. > >BTAT in 2011. IANAL, but the reason is the buyout clause which, >apparently, requires a certain amount of red tape while, incidentally, >funds a non-trivial amount of the time I can spend on Cygwin. > >I'm just curious why you never asked the question while you were still >working at Red Hat. Anyway, I asked again. Times change so procedures >might change as well.
"I was told not to worry about it" [rest of long rant snipped] cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple