delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/02/14/22:21:05

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: "Dennis McCunney" <mccunney AT bellatlantic DOT net>
To: "'David Case'" <case AT scripps DOT edu>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: cygwin and GPL (again)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:11:58 -0500
Message-ID: <003301c096fd$54ddfae0$17bbca97@Arda>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
In-Reply-To: <20010214182246.E261136@gamow.scripps.edu>
Importance: Normal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
> [mailto:cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com]On Behalf Of David Case
> Sent: 2001. February 14. 21:23
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > Btw, if you use Cygwin in an application, the application
> > automatically becomes free software.  Just so you know.
>
> Just so *I* know, isn't the above oversimplified?

Not exactly.

> If I *distribute* an application linked to cygwin to others,
> I am obliged to follow GPL-like rules for the whole application.\
> But simply *using* cygwin (e.g. to compile some code that expects
> a Unix environment) for my own use should not taint the code.
> Is this not correct?

AFAIK and IANAL:
Depends.  If your code links to the Cygwin1.dll, which is GPLed, your code
becomes GPLed too.  If your code uses the MS run-time, it does not become
GPLed.  And the whole question is moot if you don't distribute your software
to others, but just build for your own use.

I believe "if you use Cygwin in an application" above, should be read as "if
your application uses the Cygwin1.dll".  There is nothing I am aware of in
the GPL that says you can't use GNU tools to build non-GNU software.  There
_is_ such a restriction on the use of GPLed _code_.  If you are simply using
the GNU compiler to compile code you have written, linked against non-GPLed
libraries, I see no issue.

> As a somewhat more realistic example, if I distribute source
> code under conditions other than the GPL, and suggest to users
> that they could use the cygwin package to compile my code on
> their Windows machine, would such a suggestion somehow make the
> source code free software?

The essense of free software is that the folks who use it _can_ get the
source code.  The essense of the GPL is that you will provide the source
code, and that you will _tell_ the people who use your application that you
will do so.  Most of the questions about the GPL here have taken the form of
"Do I have to distribute my source _with_ my application, or can I provide
it seperately?"  My understanding of the GPL is that you _can_ provide it
seperately, as long as you make clear to the users you _will_ do so, and
that you do so in a fashion convenient to the users.  Many folks don't
want/can't use the source, but those that do should be able to get it on
demand.

> ...thanks for any clarification....dac

I believe the above is accurate.  If not, I _know_ I will hear about it.

> David A. Case                     |  e-mail:      case AT scripps DOT edu
_________________________
Dennis McCunney
mccunney AT bellatlantic DOT net


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -


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