On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 10:44:39AM -0700, Max Kaehn wrote: >On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 07:58, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I don't know what "submit it" means here. If the submission is for >>inclusion somewhere in the cygwin-specific part of winsup then the code >>needs to be assigned to Red Hat. Otherwise, why not just make it GPL? > >If MSVC code is acceptable for the cygwin-specific part of winsup, it >definitely gets the cygwin license. If it should go someplace else, >then I want people who have purchased a cygwin license from Red Hat not >to have to worry about the legalities of copying code from the test >program. If I can use the cygwin license for code in "contrib" (or >wherever), then that's fine.
Rather than talking about "MSVC code" being "acceptable", please just provide a specific indication of *what* you are trying to do. Where do you want to put this code? Look at the directories available in winsup and tell us where you want to put this. >My intent here is to minimize the barrier to entry of creating >proprietary programs that interoperate well with cygwin. If someone >makes a proprietary tool and has customers clamoring for it to work >better with cygwin (e.g. doing proper cleanup when getting a ^C while >running in an xterm), I want the business decision to be a matter >of "the integration code is already available; the only question >is whether the value added is greater than the cost of a cygwin >license from Red Hat". As I mentioned in semi-private email, the fact that you can get cygwin working by dynamic linking doesn't mean that it can necessarily be used by proprietary programs if by "proprietary" you mean "non open source". >I'm new to actually *selecting* open source licenses, so I'm grateful >for all feedback on selecting an appropriate one for the test >program. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php >looks good; is it appropriate for me to assign the copyright to >Red Hat? Again, if you assign the work to Red Hat, it will be available under the GPL and via Red Hat's proprietary license scheme -- just like the rest of the cygwin package. So, if you assign the work, you don't have to worry about the license. If you are not going to assign the work to Red Hat then it is not going into the winsup hierarchy (I'm not entirely sure that it belongs there anyway). If you are not assigning the work to Red Hat then I'd still suggest the GPL since the whole project is more-or-less dedicated to the GPL. >I got signal handling working yesterday; it works by spawning >a thread that loops on sigwait(). I want to make another pass >over the program doing cleanup and documentation and it'll be >ready for submission, probably by the time the copyright assignment >forms make it through snail mail. I'll also see if I can make a >mingw version for winsup/testsuite, as Igor suggested. ? Why wouldn't signal handling just work? A program would have to call "GetProcAddress" to retrieve the address of any signal function that it wanted to use but it should just work if all of the appropriate stuff is initialized in cygwin. 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/
