delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/02/04/22:32:10

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:32:46 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Packaging software built with cygwin
Message-ID: <20030205033246.GA4959@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030204194653 DOT A5738 AT thebrain DOT conmicro DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0302042115170 DOT 24195-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <20030204204803 DOT A6191 AT thebrain DOT conmicro DOT cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20030204204803.A6191@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 08:48:03PM -0600, Jay Maynard wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:31:43PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>Now, hold on there, no need to jump the gun.  I'm not what you may call
>>"a definitive expert on Cygwin licensing".  In fact, whatever that page
>>says surely overrides what I said earlier.
>
>Okkay...that's what I'd been relying on, and hearing that it wasn't
>true after all was a shock.  I'm happy to hear that my original
>understanding was correct.

If you are distributing something that satisfies the "open source"
requirement then the program doesn't have to be GPLed.  If the QPL is
OSD-compliant, as you said, then there is no problem.

>>Remember that linking against some version of libcygwin.a doesn't mean
>>you have to keep to the corresponding version of cygwin1.dll.  Since
>>it's loaded dynamically, all you need is for the functions you need to
>>be present in the new DLL.  This is generally the case.
>
>Present *and* working the same or compatibly.  Unfortunately, we've
>found that that's not the case.

I sincerely doubt that you've found a problem where something that was
available in an older DLL is not available in a newer one.  The only
case I can think of where this happened is the dropping of //a for
/cygdrive/a.

>There's also a bug right now that causes allocation of three times as
>much memory as Hercules actually calls for.  (I believe that one's
>already been reported; it really hits Hercules hard, though, as it's
>not uncommon to have Hercules allocate 256 MB of memory for the
>emulated system's central storage, and a 768 MB allocation will drive
>most Windows boxes to their knees.)

I'm not aware of any bug report along these lines.  I must have missed
it.

A test case would be welcome.

>> Sorry to hear that.  AFAIK, you do have to provide sources for the
>> cygwin1.dll that you distribute.
>
>Damn. You know, this is one reason people stay away from the GPL...
>(I can go on for hours, and there are undoubtedly folks here who have heard
>me do it. Anyone who would like to get the whole rant is invited to contact
>me off-list.)

Thank you for showing restraint and not going on for hours.

However, just in case you need to hear it, it is true that you have to
provide the sources for the cygwin DLL if you want to distribute it.

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 -


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