On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 11:18:04AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote: >>If you've actually looked at the UWIN sources, this is not enough. >>IANAL either, but I believe that this means you've been tainted. That >>means that we can't use your patches. Sorry. > >I've never had the chance to look at the UWIN sources. It's >proprietary. As I said before, the UWIN developers explained the >concepts verbally to me, no source code involved. > >The AST tools and libraries, which form the basis for the UWIN _tools_ >(not the UNIX emulation itself) are open source. I rewritten some >things from those sources (but from memory). > >>I hope I am misinterpreting what you said incorrectly... > >:-P
I'm not sure but I don't think it matters if the sources are proprietary. Maybe this is getting incredibly picky but if you adapted algorithms from other non-GPL compliant programs then that is probably an issue, too. This wouldn't be an issue for the Berkeley license, though. I don't know what the AST tools use for licensing. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
