> On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote > > Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg > > to cygwin32. > > Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under > gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if > it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd dll could be considered > a problem.] That's true. I was just thinking about all the packages that use it. It's worth doing, even if Cygnus doesn't want to LGPL their license. At least we could port the 1000+ packages in the main distribution. The non-free stuff would be questionable. Let's kill this thread - I made my point - ie. "just 'cause it's GPL'd doesn't automatically make it as 'free' as humanly possible". When I actually get dpkg to work, we can start up a new mailing list, and continue the discussion there. Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpq2v8EAaVig.pgp
Description: PGP signature