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
Date:	Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:42:58 -0500
Message-Id:	<200102192242.RAA21720@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning:	envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	emonsler AT beamreachnetworks DOT com
CC:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3A918ECE.A82399F1@beamreachnetworks.com>
	(emonsler AT beamreachnetworks DOT com)
Subject:	Re: Cygwin compiled DLL under Visual C++
References:	<C2D7D58DBFE9D111B0480060086E9635032074B8 AT mail DOT gft DOT de> <20010219144235 DOT B19549 AT redhat DOT com> <3A918ECE DOT A82399F1 AT beamreachnetworks DOT com>

> >  And, I have to point out that if you are linking with the Cygwin DLL,
> > *all* of your source has now become GPLed.
> 
> Souldn't this be, "If you are distributing code that links to the Cygwin
> DLL..."?  

Choice of words.  Whether or not your source is "free software" is
moot until and unless you distribute a binary of it that would cause
the source distribution clauses of the GPL to come into play.

Technically, the sources are free software, but since nobody has the
right to request them of you (nobody has the binaries), you do not
need to disclose them, so they remain proprietary anyway.

> For example, I have a small chunk of code for internal company use.  I
> compile it under either Solaris or Cygwin on NT.  My README file and
> paper documentation clearly states that no distribution outside the
> company is permitted of the NT binary, and that if such is desired that
> a commercial Cygwin license must first be purchased from RedHat.  

Yup.

> But we can use the NT version internally, and could still distribute the
> Solaris version off of the same sourcecode.  I can't imaging that this
> little testcode will ever be distributed, but the fact that we use it
> with Cygwin does not automatically transform it into free software.

Yes, it does - but it only transforms the *binary* to free software.
The source remains non-free until you redistribute the binary, at
which point the distribution of the source to comply with the gpl-ness
of the binary would cause the source to then become free also.

The GPL's restrictions are about redistribution.  If you don't
redistribute anything, those restrictions simply do not [yet] apply to
your stuff.

Popular opinion is that distribution within a company for the purpose
of doing company-dictated work is not "redistribution" in the view of
the GPL.

> IANAL.  I have read carefully the GPL, I read carefully discussions
> regarding the GPL and LGPL restrictions, and take them quite seriously.

You seem to be doing the right thing too, so don't worry about it.

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

- Raw text -