This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: cygwin vs. MKS Toolkit
- To: 'DJ Delorie' <dj@delorie.com>
- Subject: RE: cygwin vs. MKS Toolkit
- From: "McCunney, Dennis" <DMcCunney@roper.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:38:42 -0400
- Cc: "'cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com'" <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [mailto:dj@delorie.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 6:29 PM
> To: DMcCunney@roper.com
> Cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: cygwin vs. MKS Toolkit
>
> > I doubt it, as the GNU liscense would likely forbid it,
>
> If the GPL forbid MKS from doing it, it would forbid Cygnus from doing
> it too, and we do it all the time. You just have to follow certain
> requirements when you use GPL'd code, but you aren't prevented from
> doing stuff with it.
>
> Remember that the FSF owns the copyright on most of the core GNU
> programs. All other vendors shipping GNU tools, from Redhat to Cygnus
> to (gasp if it happened) Microsoft would be equivalent as far as what
> they are allowed/required/forbidden to do.
Sure. You resell packaged GNU code, but you make source available, and
technically, I believe you aren't charging for the software itself - you're
charging for the packaging, polish, and support. All legit.
My basic point was that I don't believe MKS is using GNU source, and they
have never, to my knowledge, offered any source for any of their products.
As I understand it, using GNU code would require them to do so.
______
Dennis
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com