Re: suggestion

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 08:15:01AM -0400, Suhaib Siddiqi wrote:
>> 
>> It cannot be integrated in core distribution of Cygwin.  Because of
>> conflicting
>> GPL ad X licenses, it took me months to pursue XF86 board members to at
>> least integrate
>> Cygwin related patches in XF86.  We are allowed to distribute binaries and
>> sources 
>> separate of Cygwin, but officially integrating XF86 in Cygwin will start
>> arguments
>> with XF86 board members and may result in throwing away Cygwin support.
>> 
>> Therefore, answer is no.  Cygwin/XFree86 will always exists an open source
>> separate project.
>> Binaries will be covered under GPL because they link to Cygwin1.dll, but
>> XF86 sources will
>> be under X Consortium license, which means if you could get it compile
>> without Cygwin1.dll
>> linking then your binaries will not be under GPL... which is fair enough.
>
>That's a somewhat weird decision of the X Consortium. Putting the
>package into the Cygwin distro doesn't change the licensing terms
>of the sources.
>
>Jus as example, the OpenSSH sources aren't suddenly GPL'd only
>due to the fact that they are in the same directory as the OpenSSH
>Cygwin binaries. They will of course remain BSD licensed.

Yeah.  I really don't see how anyone could object to the fact that we
would allow a person to run "setup.exe" to download the X sources rather
than grab them from our web site.

We aren't going to include X in the Cygwin distribution until it
setup.exe has matured a little but it has always been one of my goals to
include this in a cygwin distribution.

I wasn't aware that there were any issues with this.  We certainly wouldn't
change the licensing terms so I don't see how there could be issues with
this.

cgf