This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff
On May 17 00:15, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >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.
> But is "minimal patching ni order to port" considered distributing a
> "dreivative work" or a "binary"?
> Anyway, as far as I understood from the source on opensource.org ML, the
> author didn't really mean to mean that "that way", so I could ask the
> author himself if he can personally allow an exception for cases such as
> this one?
> If that could help, or it wouldn't help anyway?
It's a bit dangerous to rely on the author saying "but I didn't mean it
that way". Probably he would have to change the license to include
some explicit wording about this situation. Asking can't hurt, though.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Red Hat, Inc.