[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 04:39:51PM +0200, Sven Sandberg wrote:
> > >Also, would it be worth trying to port the Unix version of
> > >Allegro to "native" Cygwin?
> >
> > i don't think so. why put extra (cygwin) licensing restrictions on the
> > allegro library?
>
> If I understand http://cygwin.com/licensing.html correctly (in
> particular the last four paragraphs), it merely requires Allegro's
> license to comply with the open source definition, not with GPL. And if
> I understand http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html
> correctly, Allegro's license _is_ compliant (assuming that "compliant"
> is weaker than "approved"; I don't know if this is what they mean).
First, I don't really see what would be gained by porting the
Unix version to cygwin; but I can see that it's useful if the
regular mingw32 version works fine with cygwin even without
"-mno-cygwin", in case users want to use cygwin features from
their own code which also uses Allegro. I think Henrik just
said that this works anyway, so that's cool. :)
But regardless of that, I don't think porting the Unix version
to native cygwin would have any licensing implications at all.
The cygwin licence, as far as I can see, is simply controlling
distribution of bits of cygwin (such as libcygwin). Allegro
itself would not need to distribute any cygwin code, so its
licence is irrelevant. The only licensing implication is for
the user who wants to distribute an executable; they'd have to
either distribute source or pay the commercial licence fee.
That's their "fault" for using cygwin features, it's the bargain
they make.
George