ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/12/04/12:54:47

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3C0D0DCF.3020108@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:54:23 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010914
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Licensing: BSD-w/advert
References: <3C0C68C6 DOT 1050003 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3C0C8191 DOT 1030406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011204155525 DOT GB15432 AT redhat DOT com>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:56:01AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>It's paragraph #4 that I'm asking about.  Basically, does the old BSD 
>>license satisfy the "open source" exception of cygwin's license?
>>
> 
> What does http://www.opensource.org/osd.html say?


Well, it SEEMS like BSD+advert is okay, but I was looking for some 
official confirmation.  It is odd that


http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html


doesn't mention whether the old license was osd-compliant or not.

--Chuck




- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019