Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/12/18/15:03:40
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:39:57PM -0600, Gary Van Sickle wrote:
>>If you are distributing cygwin1.dll and any of the executables that are
>>directly associated with it (mount.exe, umount.exe, cygcheck.exe, ps.exe,
>>kill.exe, cygpath.exe) then you must adhere to the GPL. That means that
>>you have to make sources available to your customers.
>>
>>The fact that you haven't modified the code is irrelevant. The GPL is
>>about making sure that people who have the binary versions of software
>>also have access to the source code. We provide both the source code
>>and the binaries to you. You need to pass that along to your customers,
>>*unless* you pursue other arrangements with Red Hat.
>>
>>Btw, I was trying to move this discussion off of the public list because
>>it probably isn't of much interest to people there.
>
>Well, perhaps, but I think those two paragraphs are the clearest and
>most concise "layman's terms" explanation of Cygwin licensing I've read
>to date. All it needs is a "No, a link to the Cygwin site won't cut it"
>paragraph and I'd say it would make a good FAQ.
My response was tailored to the requirements that were presented. It is
not that simple. I wouldn't want someone making the decision to release
a cygwin product based on a FAQ entry.
The bottom line is comply with the GPL or talk to someone at Red Hat about
licensing. I think this is a pretty simple rule.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -