Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/09/29/17:14:43
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Matthew O. Persico wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >?On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>> >
>> >>>?Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's
>> >>>?gcc/g++ is automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some
>> >>>?violating...
>> >>>?sorry.
>> >>
>> >>?This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. ?Unless
>> >>?you have purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
>> >
>> >?There are some exceptions, IIRC. ?For more information, see
>> >?<http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136>?or consult a lawyer.
>> >?Igor
>>
>> I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg
>> your indulgence. From the link above:
>>
>> "To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out
>> any binaries, you must also make the source available. "
>>
>> Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product
>> (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source
>> exposed, etc.
>>
>> BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers
>> or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I
>> don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument
>> goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies.
>>
>> Is that a reasonable interpretation?
>>
>IANAL
>YANALATEYHSMBSI
>
>In-house use is normally not in violation of the GPL.
>
>In your example, as long as your program is never sold or distributed in
>binary form (ie. you did not sell or give it to the bank in binary
>form because the bank owned your labor that created it), and the bank
>never sells or distributes the binaries outside itself, I think you are
>ok.
>
>Since these types of distinctions look legally cloudy to me, I would
>hesitate strongly to agree with your "goes by the wayside for all
>non-software development companies" statement.
>
>That said, you should consult a lawyer. No one on this list is
>a qualified GPL authority. Only the courts can make a determination.
>
>CGF, the closest person here to an authority, hates GPL conversations.
>Don't expect him to speak up unless you are clearly in violation, or this
>conversation has already (as it probably has) gone on too long.
I've asked someone more knowledgeable than I to offer an opinion on this
issue but, really, as Brian says, the bottom line is to consult a
lawyer. If this is a potential real world application, and you really
are writing banking software, then you certainly don't want to just go by
the opinions of a bunch of mailing list geeks.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -