LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain

Corinna Vinschen
Fri Oct 26 07:43:00 GMT 2012

On Oct 26 02:27, Jari Aalto wrote:
> 2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina
> On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote:
> | >
> |
> | Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side.
> No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice, considering
> the existing licencing policy in Open Source software projects.
> | License in the base-files package contents.
> | What would be more appropriate? GPLv3?
> The relevant[1] big ones are GPL, BSD-2-clause, MIT and Apache. Trying to
> avoid license fragmentation is always a good move.

Despite all the arguments, here's a question:  If PD is such a bad idea,
why is Fedora's setup package, which provides much the same service
as our base-files package, PD licensed as well?

Why on earth should it be required to put really simple startup scripts
under more complex than the absolute necessary licenses?


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