Mail Archives: cygwin/2012/08/17/23:39:42
Hi Christopher,
Well put, and you're absolutely right, and thank you. We've ourselves composed gpl code, contributed several patches/bugfixes to several projects, supported Linux (red hat) through multiple enterprise agreements, and are very familiar with the GPL. We have no less than 40 rhel enterprise annual agreements, purposely pay to support Linux/open source, and don't use Centos or similar which would perform fine but not support a Linux/open source friendly company.
In this particular case, our product as distributed to clients is based in visual basic script (yes, I'm aware, that's not the most elegant language) and itself contains no gpl'd code, uses no dll's itself, and is not gpl'd. If it were Linux, think of it as a super glorified bash program - licensed in its own right (not gpl), but running gpl'd and other binaries on the system.
It runs/executes ssh.exe and a modified version of rsync.exe. Our rsync patches have been submitted to the rsync team and public via their bugzilla. Aside from that, it's stock cygwin, that permits all of the license grants to the end user as specified by the gpl, and the licenses of the specific tools (rsync being gpl, openssh being bsd, the dll's like openssl per those terms). The rsync patches will likely never be accepted, mostly because they're very specific - but hey, if they're valuable to others, they're out there.
It's all somewhat moot though, our code distributed to clients is near useless without a Cloud subscription, since most of the heavy lifting is done in our datacenters anyhow and provided as a monthly service.
So.... Like you, we're pretty passionate to play right when it comes to open source.
I see in a different post that there may be a commercial red hat version which may help address the question I asked.
Back to the question though, are there any versions you felt were especially stable?
Thanks,
Devin
On Aug 17, 2012, at 7:33 PM, "Christopher Faylor" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:13:20PM +0000, Devin Nate wrote:
>> We use Cygwin in a product we create. Thank you all for the work to
>> make it such a wonderful product. Our use of the Cygwin env is very
>> limited, comprised of only: ?cygwin dll 1.7.9, ssh.exe, rsync.exe,
>> openssl.exe, and required dlls. Our product rarely changes, so
>> stability is paramount. It's installed on all variety of machines, and
>> if it stops working is a very costly job to correct.
>
> I'm a broken record on the subject but I can't let the word "product"
> go by without pointing out that if your product uses Cygwin it is then
> GPLed. That's how the GPL license that Cygwin uses works.
>
> You must make source code available to anyone who receives your product.
> That includes the product itself, cygwin1.dll, ssh, and any other dlls.
> Hopefully you already know this but I thought I'd mention it just in
> case.
>
> cgf
>
> --
> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -