On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:40:19PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >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.
FWIW, I'm checking on this internally now. 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/
