| www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:10:15PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >> Do we really need to install other UNIX-like utilities? That will be >> very confusing for users, I think. Can't ksh just use the existing >utilties? > >Remember ksh has that in-process execution thing, where certain commands >are replaced by internally loadable modules...the stuff Robert was >talking about two weeks ago. True, but there is no reason to call "ls.exe" by the same name in another directory. It could be called "ksh-ls.exe" or or ls.so or something. >>>Would it be OK to create a dummy -src package that just contains a text >>>file (maye be with a suspicious name) which refers to the AT&T software >>>download site? > >Absolutely not. We must distribute the sources OURSELVES in order to >comply with our own cygwin GPL license! Cygwin doesn't really GPL infect anything. If the source license that ksh93 is distributed with allows downloading from a web site, then that's fine, so there is no reason to be GPL compliant. What matters is if the source license is compliant under the exception that Cygwin provides. cgf
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |