Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:11:31 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Cc: weaver AT arbitragex DOT net, mithras AT dhp DOT com Subject: Re: The semi-open development model Message-ID: <20010225211131.A1183@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, weaver AT arbitragex DOT net, mithras AT dhp DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: ; from weaver@arbitragex.net on Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:46:49PM -0500 On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:46:49PM -0500, weaver wrote: >Ben, > >I am not quite certain that the cigwin list is appropriate for this thread >but I will answer here for now. If clarification is requested, I may pursue >reply on another appropriate forum as advised. > >I am aware there has been quite some discussions to the effect that most if >not all software development projects should benefit from the open source >model. I have found such debates inspiring and useful. However there are >some instances where economic realities may warrant to clarify, extend and >perhaps amend the open source model stance. This is definitely not the place for this kind of discussion. I fail to see how it applies to "Cygwin" (note the spelling) at all. I would appreciate it if any interested parties would take this up in private email or in some other forum. Thank you. Christopher Faylor Cygwin Engineering Manager Red Hat, Inc. (not one of the instant millionaires) -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple