This is the mail archive of the email@example.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project. See the Cygwin
home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey
- To: DJ Delorie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey
- From: Stipe Tolj <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:54:47 +0100
- CC: N8TM@aol.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
- Organization: Department of Economical Computer Science, University of Cologne, Germany
- References: <email@example.com> <199903072222.RAA14720@envy.delorie.com>
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I understand the reasons for these requirements, but IMHO they are
> > unnecessarily burdensome for the case of packages which come from
> > mirrors of ftp.gnu.org, where we have reasonable assurance they may
> > always be found easily.
> The FSF updates their software regularly. As soon as they remove an
> old version in favor of a new version, you've violated the GPL.
> Besides, it doesn't matter if it's easy or not. The GPL is a legal
> document which must be honored if you wish to use GPL'd software,
> regardless of whether or not you think it matters. If you distribute
> a binary that is covered by the GNU GPL, *you* are legally *required*
> to distribute the sources that built *that* binary. Those are the
> terms, and only the author may decide to waive them.
of course you are right. But this may be considered as an optimal
solution that doesn't match reality in some cases, like normal life
> > In addition, if someone wants the source, they may also wish to be
> > checking for a more up to date version, so they will need to go to
> > the gnu mirror anyway.
> No, the GPL doesn't work that way. The user must be able to get the
> sources that built *that exact binary*. Pointing to someone else's
> FTP site that may or may not have the right version of the sources is
> not acceptable. Where would Linux be if the FSF had decided to remove
> gcc 2.7.* from their servers, when gcc 2.8.* couldn't be used to build
> the Linux kernel?
In my opinion not a very representative example for our aims :)
Stipe Tolj <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science
University of Cologne, Germany
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com