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 From: "Matthew O. Persico" To: , Brian Ford CC: Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:11:18 -0400 Message-ID: <2003926231118.437728@mopxp> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: compiled files under GPL? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h8R3BWka030545 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 >  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? -- Matthew O. Persico -- 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/