This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 16 10:34, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Tacvek wrote:
>>
>> > the problem: The OSF was unable to decide if the BSDPL is OSD
>> > complient. It looks like they may have concluded it was not. See
>> > the thread at
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg04670.html
>> >
>> Reading that thread a while ago I intended they decided it was a
>> "strange" license (trying to be a BSD that avoids the "GPL taint" it
>> got "tainted" in pretty much the same way, under some points of view,
>> but the author in that thread states that smoe sentences are to be
>> interpreted differently, but that's not clear at all), but it seems to
>> me that they mainly were arguing its validity as a license tout-court
>> (given those not-so-clear statements).
>>
>> Of course here the problem is not if the BSDPL is more or less "open",
>> if the clause says "complies with the Open Source definition" maybe
>> the problem is real...
>>
>> ??????? IANAL, I leave all those thinking to someone who is more
>
>If in doubt, don't put it into the distro. There is doubt, apparently.
I haven't been reading this too closely but I don't see why there's a
problem. If the sources are being distributed along with the binaries
then the letter of the GPL is being maintained. Unless you are
violating the BSDPL license terms and think someone is going to come
after you as a result, I don't see what the package's license terms have
to do with anything.
cgf