Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:27:11 -0400 From: Mike Schiraldi Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Licensing Message-ID: <20010409122711.F24963@research.netsol.com> References: <20010409103454.C24963@research.netsol.com> <200104091610.MAA00456@envy.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.16i In-Reply-To: <200104091610.MAA00456@envy.delorie.com>; from dj@delorie.com on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:10:24PM -0400 > source definition either. If one chose to make extensive > modifications to make it work under Cygwin, and did not make those > modifications available in an OSD way, then the resulting binary does > not qualify for the exception. Actually, we're not making any changes to either OpenLDAP or Cygwin. We just want to link the two into the same executable. As far as i can tell from some amateur legal research, because the OpenLDAP license is not GPL-compatible, it would not be legal to do this without your special clause. So i just wanted to make sure that using OpenLDAP in this way qualifies for the clause. -- Mike Schiraldi Verisign Applied Research -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple