delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/02/25/18:30:15

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: "Kendall Bennett" <KendallB AT scitechsoft DOT com>
Organization: SciTech Software, Inc.
To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:40:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Cygwin V1.0 CD license?
In-reply-to: <200002252250.RAA22050@envy.delorie.com>
References: <200002251451893 DOT SM00161 AT KENDALLB>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Message-Id: <200002251541250.SM00161@KENDALLB>

DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> Unless you purchase the proprietary-use license (info AT cygnus DOT com
> for details and pricing) there is no difference between the net
> release license and the CD-ROM license. 

Ok. I figured that but this was not clear at all on the Red Hat 
pages. It would be nice if a link to the actual license text was 
included on the Red Hat info pages for the 1.0 CD-ROM release.

> The recent exception we added, which applies equally to net
> releases and the CD-ROM, is that if a project is distributed using
> an open-source-compliant license anyway, then that part of cygwin
> that is statically linked into your program may be distributed
> under those terms instead of the GPL.  

Ok great.

> The DLL itself must always be distributed under the GPL.  The
> current terms never allow a source-less distribution, although the
> open source definition is more flexible about where the source
> comes from than the GPL. 

Ok. So if I built an EXE file with Cygwin that was based on MPL 
sources, I can distribute the product so long as I do the following:

 1. Include binaries for the EXE file
 2. Include the MPL'ed sources for the EXE file
 3. Include the cygwin1.dll 
 4. Include sources for the cygwin1.dll itself.

One point of contention would be that the MPL does not require 
distribution of the sources with a project, so long as the code is 
available by an accepted means of electronic distribution (ie: tar.gz 
files on an ftp/web server, CVS etc).

Would using Cygwin require this to be changed so that the sources are 
included with the EXE, or would only the sources to the cygwin1.dll 
be required to be distributed?

Regards,

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|   SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software!     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett          | Email: KendallB AT scitechsoft DOT com    |
| Director of Engineering  | Phone: (530) 894 8400              |
| SciTech Software, Inc.   | Fax  : (530) 894 9069              |
| 505 Wall Street          | ftp  : ftp.scitechsoft.com         |
| Chico, CA 95928, USA     | www  : http://www.scitechsoft.com  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019