long double support in cygwin
Sun Nov 12 14:15:00 GMT 2000
> If the code has been assigned to the FSF and is now owned by the FSF, we
> can't use it. IANAL.
The FSF always grants back an unlimited license to the original
author. Check the paperwork - I bet he can still re-license his
> The LGPL still requires that source code be distributed if you are
> *providing the library* does it not? If I try to sell you a copy of
> glibc, I will have to provide you with the sources. If I sell you a
> copy of a program linked with glibc, I don't have to give you the
> sources for glibc. It's a subtle distinction, but this is why we
> can't use it.
Not quite. If you built a problem with glibc (or cygwin, under the
LGPL), you are *always* required to distribute the sources for the
LGPL'd components, and whatever else it takes to rebuild the
application at least from those sources (normally, this means a .o for
your app). The LGPL *still* requires that the user be able to change
the LGPL'd components and rebuild the app. It just doesn't require
that you be able to rebuild the app from *its* sources.
Under *no* circumstances does the LGPL allow you to not have to
[eventually] redistribute the sources for the LGPL'd component.
> As to whether the author of the code can reassign the code for use
> in cygwin, that is another issue. I don't know if John's statement
> (quoted from another message) is adequate or not:
It is probably not, for reasons I stated in another message.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More information about the Cygwin