This is the mail archive of the cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Cygwin/XFree86 DocBook-based FAQ Draft 3


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Hunt" <huntharo@msu.edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>; "cygx"
<cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Cygwin/XFree86 DocBook-based FAQ Draft 3


> Robert,
>
> > It's wrong. The original FAQ is the definitive answer:
>
> What original FAQ?
>
> In the FAQ I wrote, "Cygwin/XFree86 may qualify as a platform that
Open
> Motif can be distributed with and used on, but work has yet to begin
on
> determining if that is the case."

Q 3.10. I realise it was a little brief though :]. Still, "Open Motif"
is not open source.

> I'm pretty sure that we'd actually have to contact The Open Group to
check
> which side of "Open Source" we fall on, as Cygwin has a kernel that is
> clearly Open Source, whereas the Windows kernel is not Open Source.
Which
> kernel are we to consider?  The kernel that we depend upon, which
would be
> Cygwin?  Or, the kernel that we can sometimes interact with, which
would be
> Widnows?

Which Suhaib has done in the past - see his email w.r.t.

[Skip]

I wasn't referring to the Opengroups spin doctoring on [Open] Motif, but
thanks for giving me latitude there ;].

As far as being bush lawyers and making a case to the open group - thats
not faq related. The simple case is, that
a) Motif is not open source. (It doesn't meet the no-restriction
requirement for the OSI thingwhatsit).
b) Suhaib has been told directly that cygwin doesn't qualify.

I'd be happy if this changes, but from a FAQ point of view, we want to
answer questions...

Rob


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]