Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/06/16/04:34:03
On Friday 16 June 2006 08:37, Brian Dessent wrote:
>
> False. If you provide cygwin1.dll you must provide its source.
> Period. You can't say "it's free software, get it from cygwin.com".
> You must provide a copy yourself (the exact version corresponding to the
> DLL you distribute), on your server (or in the same method that you
> offer the binaries.) You cannot rely on a third party to do this for
> you.
so I misread that one.
> Lloeki wrote:
> > He doesn't have to provide source code together with
> > distributed binaries either, but just point out that it's free
> > software, that he can provide the (exact) source code when asked for it,
> > and indeed do it if ever asked for it.
is that more correct?
My reaction was suggested by:
> (I won't even mention that it distributes these open source command-line
> tools without any source code as well. Oops... looks like I just did.)
which implies the message was aimed at revealing a GPL violation by the
software itself (cygwin1 and cygz dlls being supposedly provided only for the
command line tools to operate correctly).
about my statement that the software itself does not necessarily violates the
GPL, am I correct about it?
> > IANALATEIHSMBSI
> This is painfully obvious.
>
people learn by making mistakes. sorry to be painful about it.
lloeki
--
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 -