From: jqb AT netcom DOT com (Jim Balter) Subject: Re: Cygnus Cygwin32 Press Release 1/21/97 12 Feb 1997 18:13:29 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <33020F14.4144.cygnus.gnu-win32@netcom.com> References: <01BC1757 DOT 59ED0370 AT gater DOT krystalbank DOT msk DOT ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) Original-To: Richard Watts Original-CC: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Richard Watts wrote: > There are also horrible arguments about whether modificationss in > separate source files constitute aggregation or modification > (note that dependency is not a good discriminator because > of bug dependencies, and problems with eg. bash shell scripts > falling under the GPL). > > [1] this is dodgy anyway, since it could be argued that this is > dynamic linkage, and therefore just constitutes aggregation, in the > same way that MS can't claim rights over programs which link with > kernel32.dll. > > [2] ie. my clients own the source code anyway. This is conceptual confusion; it's not a matter of Cygnus claiming rights over code you own, it's a matter of distribution rights. If your code can't be run without using some piece of GPL software (cygwin.dll, for instance), then your ownership of it does you little. You have a choice: sell your code to customers on the condition that they acquire the GPL code code by themselves, or distribute the GPL code along with yours and license your software to any party for free, as the GPL requires. Cygnus is now giving you another option: you can distribute cygwin.dll along with your code without having to give your code away, if you pay Cygnus for the privilege. > > In practice, I would expect that > >we would not bother to pursue any such cases - not much to be gained > >by it. > > True, however there are two problems with this : > > (i) Corporate lawyers tend to get jumpy. > (ii) In the UK, in some cases, breach of copyright is a criminal > offence. This could cause problems if some third party (dare > I mention the SPA ?) decided to press charges. Indeed, it is corporate suicide to count on someone not bothering to sue you. -- - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".