maybe-ITP: bsdiff

Corinna Vinschen
Fri Jan 27 09:07:00 GMT 2006

On Jan 26 22:21, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote, on 2005-05-16:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
> >> against the Cygwin DLL.  If you do that with an application which has
> >> a non-approved OSS license, you're infringing the Cygwin license if
> >> you don't GPL the code.  But if you GPL the code, you're infringing the
> >> BSDPL license.  So I don't see a satisfactory way out.
> > I thought that there was some kind of strange clause in the license
> > which allowed closed source distribution (which there is) which wouldn't
> > be a problem for us, since we don't distribute things that way.  But,
> > nevermind.  I've just read the BSDPL finally and I see that it tries to
> > impose itself on any distribution which contains a binary which is
> > licensed in this fashion.  So, as was hinted at earlier in the thread,
> > this makes the license viral.  So, you're right.  We can't use it since
> > including it would change the licensing of the entire distribution.
> I wonder how did Debian people do, or hopefully the license is changed
> in version 4.3??
> Well, in fact it is! Version 4.3 seems to be quite similiar to 4.2,
> /except/ it is distributed under the BSD license!
> As this diff clearly states:
> [...]
> I guess I can finally produce a legally acceptable package? ;-)

Yes, but you need 5 votes.  Given the incredible activity of voting or,
worse, reviewing of packages, I doubt that you will get the package in.

Just if nobody remembers here anymore:

    Every Maintainer Can (And Should) Review Packages!

                Every Maintainer Can Vote!


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list