[#4766] Wiki — "Glen Stampoultzis" <trinexus@...>

21 messages 2000/09/04
[#4768] RE: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...> 2000/09/04

Hi, Glen,

[#4783] Re: Wiki — Masatoshi SEKI <m_seki@...> 2000/09/04

[#4785] Re: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2000/09/05

Howdy,

[#4883] Re-binding a block — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/09/12

[#4930] Perl 6 rumblings -- RFC 225 (v1) Data: Superpositions — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2000/09/15

[#4936] Ruby Book Eng. translation editor's questions — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

20 messages 2000/09/16

[#5045] Proposal: Add constants to Math — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

15 messages 2000/09/21

[#5077] Crazy idea? infix method calls — hal9000@...

This is a generalization of the "in" operator idea which I

17 messages 2000/09/22

[#5157] Compile Problem with 1.6.1 — Scott Billings <aerogems@...>

When I try to compile Ruby 1.6.1, I get the following error:

15 messages 2000/09/27

[ruby-talk:4904] Re: Windows installation issues, etc.

From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...>
Date: 2000-09-12 16:10:06 UTC
List: ruby-talk #4904
My understanding was that even if you were offering it commercially (I don't
think that covers Ruby) that you could just keep the source on YOUR OWN ftp
site, and allow downloading.  Since one is obligated to make the source
available for three years, I don't think that one could count on the source
being available at CygWin's site for three years (though, of course, they are
also obligated).
It seems to me that the requirement would be to keep a copy of the source on
the Ruby ftp site (and distribute documentation of the URL).  That may be
more than is demanded, but it should suffice.  IANAL.

N.B.:  Re: keeping the code in sync.  That's not what the license is talking
about.  Your obligation is to provide the source code of the version that was
distributed.  It may be better or worse technically, but that's not what the
agreement is about.

Conrad Schneiker wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Dave Thomas wrote:
>
> > "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> writes:
> >
> > > 1. I do think that cygwin1.dll should be packaged with the Ruby
> > > installation. It was a significant pain for me to find it on the web.
> > > In the end, I had to use the site's search engine, because I
> > > couldn't find it by navigating.
> > >
> > > 2. However, I think there are licensing issues -- if I remember
> > > right, the source has to be included along with the DLL. A nuisance
> > > from our perspective, and increasing the code bloat.
>
> <Lots of snipping, including extended license quote.>
>
> > I think that this means that we can distribute the .dll via download
> > and say that the source is also available for download from the same
> > place. In a way that's good - we keep the source to the .dll in step
> > with the .dll itself.
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer -- anyone else care to comment?
>
> I don't think anyone has a problem with you not being a lawyer. :-)
>
> I think you are on the right track. However, it seems to me that the
> simplest way to definitely resolve this issue is one or more (cc:-style)
> e-mails to various Cygnus/Redhat contacts.
>
> --
> Conrad Schneiker
> (This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)

-- (c) Charles Hixson
--  Addition of advertisements or hyperlinks to products specifically
prohibited

Attachments (1)

charleshixsn.vcf (145 Bytes, text/x-vcard)
begin:vcard 
n:Hixson;Charles
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:charleshixson@earthling.net
fn:Charles Hixson
end:vcard

In This Thread

Prev Next