Subject: Re: gnu-win32 licensing terms.
From: [email-masked] (Jim Pick)

22 Jul 1997 16:56:43 -0700
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-555229926P";
	micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/97
Original-To: [email-masked]
Original-Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:56:20 EDT."
             <[email-masked]> 
X-Url: http://www.jimpick.com/
X-Face: Hz"C77\53<,u1}C~=DFwS#Ddj161XLl6W!3g7xjxh*P'`FF^-IYQXX$a*WC~=^8rvy"~<3z
 UeQqGo&KZe[}lJg`\+SDMGRVIUJ~P,#(=w~yYv{g9i%"k|\J|jYVvv^Bzfwo=@AddrDMO<xV_IAl`(
 TW7;|vH6Kik(,iljluXex0vrnM: SedI@lbAeNvM
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

--==_Exmh_-555229926P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> I'm not aware of anybody who thinks that linking against a GPL dynamic
> library causes the program to come under the GPL.

I believe RMS thinks that way, sortof.  But the issue isn't really clear.
If the dynamic library is included as "part of" a proprietary system,
then the GPL probably applies.  But I don't really think it would
apply if it is supplied separately (as part of an OS, for example).

Since nobodies interpretations of the GPL have ever been tested in court, 
it's hard to say.  It would be a bad situation if someone gets sued 
because they used a library that was placed under the GPL.  That's why 
the LGPL is a better license for libraries, since it defines things more
clearly.

It's a bit difficult for me to recommend basing a "Debian GNU/Win32"
distribution on a GPL'd version of cygwin32 when it is also accompanied
by an implicit legal liability (if someone has a different interpretation
of the GPL than Cygnus does).

> However, an NT DLL is not the same as a Unix dynamic library.  You
> don't link against the DLL.  Instead, you link against a library
> (automatically generated by dlltool) which contains calls to the DLL.
> Since that automatically generated library was put under the GPL, that
> required all programs that were linked against it to follow the GPL
> restrictions.

However, somebody could make an equivalent "stub" library that wasn't
under the GPL quite easily - so it's rather silly to attempt to impose
the GPL on other applications using this technique.  It's too easy
to circumvent.

This is probably a moot point - since it doesn't look like the Beta 19
winsup code is going to be under the GPL.  Or am I wrong?

(I hope I'm not being too nasty - I'm just trying to be a good
 "free software" fan)

Cheers,

 - Jim

--==_Exmh_-555229926P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

--==_Exmh_-555229926P--
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".