This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug

On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:39:46AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On our
>> >SourceForge downloads page we distribute a source tarball, a few binary
>> >RPMs, and a Cygwin binary package.
>> And a cygwin source package, hopefully, if you want to be in compliance
>> with the GPL.  
>Not so.  Section 3c of the GPL exempts noncommercial distributors from
>having to carry the source.  They can simply point you to where they
>downloaded the code themselves.

You mean this section:

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Who made the offer to continue to include the sources to whatever is
being distributed?  Not me.  I don't want to have to track the PRC
project and make sure that I don't delete, say, the Cygwin 1.3.2
sources because they are still using them.

>You shouldn't give John a hard time; the PRC-Tools project is a free
>software project in much the same spirit as Cygwin.  In fact, the two
>projects are very similar: a GCC port to a non-Unix platform, for making
>binaries native to that platform.

"Why are you giving me a hard time! I'm a free software project!".  Yes,
we hear this from time to time.  The GPL is a legal binding document.
If you want to use it, you should be in compliance with it.  You don't
get to ignore it because you consider yourself "one of the good guys".
It would be nice if life worked that way, but it doesn't.

>Now, if John were still working for Palm and posting from a
>address, you'd be justified in being picky about the GPL.  But he's not,
>and you shouldn't.
>> Not surprising since this isn't a goal for setup.exe.  It's really only
>> intended to install cygwin packages.
>What makes PRC-Tools "not a Cygwin package" and, say, tcltk "a Cygwin
>package"?  Both are programming language systems that live within the
>Cygwin environment.

The PRC-Tools are not distributed from the cygwin web site.  They are
not an official cygwin package.  Do I really have to explain this?

>> I've got mixed feelings about putting concessions for
>> other packages in setup.  It isn't really supposed to be a general purpose
>> installation tool.
>Keep in mind, this isn't a case of using setup.exe to install a
>standalone package.  PRC-Tools on Windows is always used inside a Cygwin
>environment.  John is just trying to make it simpler to make a PRC-Tools
>distribution tarball that Cygwin's own installation tools will accept
>and install.

Yes, that was perfectly clear.  Obviously, the whole reason for contacting
the cygwin mailing list was that PRC tools use Cygwin.  That makes them
a package that uses cygwin.  It doesn't automatically make them an official
cygwin package.  Any more than saying that some package that uses RPM
is an official part of the Red Hat distribution.

It apparently isn't clear to you that "Cygwin's own installation tools"
were meant to install, um, the cygwin packages from the cygwin web site
and mirrors.  They don't have accomodations for using other web sites or
being bundled as part of a larger package.  That is what I was saying


Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]