Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > However, parts of it are released under the "Q > Public license", which GNU lists explicitly as > non-GPL-compatible. Does this mean an automatic > "no" to an official Cygwin package [...] ?
>From http://cygwin.com/licensing.html: In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs whose sources are distributed under a license that complies with the Open Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a without libcygwin.a itself causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL. IANAL, but the Q Public License is listed on the OSI web page, so there don't appear to be any legal restrictions-- some Cygwin packages use different open source licenses already. Or have there been policy changes for new Cygwin packages that I'm not aware of? -Jerry
