Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:29:32 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: License question Message-ID: <20030311202932.GC6122@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20030310044234.GD18023@redhat.com> <000101c2e794$06f39d00$825bd38c@prndelllaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000101c2e794$06f39d00$825bd38c@prndelllaptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:04:01PM -0800, Pete Nordquist wrote: >Thank you, Christopher, for your quick reply. I didn't mean to imply >that every binary produced by gcc is GPLed. I'm not sure how you could take your assertion any other way unless you think there is something special about cygwin in this regard. >I am relatively new to licensing, am not a lawyer and am trying to >reconcile what I read in the GPL and LGPL with how binaries are >produced. The "In addition ... " text you quoted below certainly >seems to cover my question, but I can't find this text in either the >GPL or the LGPL. Have I just missed it in the GPL and LGPL, or should >I be looking somewhere else for this text? Thank you for your >consideration, I found the text in applicable gcc sources. 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/