Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3C0D0DCF.3020108@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:54:23 -0500
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010914
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Licensing: BSD-w/advert
References:	<3C0C68C6 DOT 1050003 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3C0C8191 DOT 1030406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011204155525 DOT GB15432 AT redhat DOT com>
X-Virus-Scanned:	by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:56:01AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>It's paragraph #4 that I'm asking about.  Basically, does the old BSD 
>>license satisfy the "open source" exception of cygwin's license?
>>
> 
> What does http://www.opensource.org/osd.html say?


Well, it SEEMS like BSD+advert is okay, but I was looking for some 
official confirmation.  It is odd that


http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html


doesn't mention whether the old license was osd-compliant or not.

--Chuck

- Raw text -