Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:47:09 -0400
Message-Id: <199905182147.RAA26898@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: tolj AT uni-duesseldorf DOT de
CC: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to: <3741DDE0.23F4E7CC@uni-duesseldorf.de> (message from Stipe Tolj
	on Tue, 18 May 1999 23:38:40 +0200)
Subject: Re: [RFC] apache-cygwin licensing conflicts
References:  <3741DDE0 DOT 23F4E7CC AT uni-duesseldorf DOT de>


Just some quick notes, not my final opinion on this:

> At least adding the patch to the source distribution would not violate
> any of both -- cygwin nor apache -- licensing agreements since the
> cygwin license only applies for binaries, is that right?

If you wrote the patch, you can do what you wish with it.  The Cygwin
license doesn't apply to non-cygwin sources.

> Unfortunatly any binary distrbution would ether violate the cygwin or
> apache license, since both _would_ apply to the binary.

Not quite.  When you have two licenses, you must distribute the binary
under terms that meet both licenses.  The GNU GPL is usually
acceptable distribution terms for other licenses as well.  Just
because the Apache license *allows* other distribution options doesn't
mean it *requires* them.