cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with descriptions, categories, and dependencies

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 06:47:28PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Back to cygipc: so, this ain't gonna happen.  If we want to have IPC 
> stuff directly in the cygwin kernel, "we" are going to have to write it 
> ourselves.  (Unfortunately, I am most likely disallowed from helping, as 
> are a number of other people.  "Contaminated" by exposure to the cygipc 
> code.  How can anyone be sure that any code I contribute is not 
> influenced -- or even copied! -- from my knowledge of the cygipc internals?)

That's a shame, IMO.  I can't understand it, honestly.  The way
people learn programming is by looking into code from other, more
experienced people.  This lame licensing issue is slowing down
progress.  Imagine: I take a look into a piece of code to see how
another person implemented functionality `foo'.  This gives me
an idea _how_ to implement it.  Now I begin to implement my own
stuff.  I don't copy it.  I make my own improvements.  I'm just
using the _idea_ how to implement it but I'm coding it "in my
own words".

Why the heck am I violating a license? Why is open source open
source if other open source projects can't learn from that?

Hmmpf, just my naive look into that issue.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.