On Apr 11 13:09, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 02:10:42PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 11 09:01, Peter Rosin wrote: > >>The newlib license is liberal enough for RedHat to relicense it under > >>their own terms? > > > >That's it, more or less. > > I have never seen how you can have it both ways, legally speaking. I > was told not to worry about it when I was at Red Hat but no one ever > gave me a convincing explanation. Since there are no assignments in > newlib land, it just relies on BSD-like licensing. I don't see why > Cygwin can't do the same.
BTAT in 2011. IANAL, but the reason is the buyout clause which, apparently, requires a certain amount of red tape while, incidentally, funds a non-trivial amount of the time I can spend on Cygwin. I'm just curious why you never asked the question while you were still working at Red Hat. Anyway, I asked again. Times change so procedures might change as well. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpYSRB3qGDo7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
