From: jim AT jimpick DOT com (Jim Pick) Subject: Re: gnu-win32 licensing terms. 22 Jul 1997 16:56:43 -0700 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <199707221837.LAA07105.cygnus.gnu-win32@fleming.jimpick.com> 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: ian AT cygnus DOT com Original-Cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:56:20 EDT." <199707221756 DOT NAA24280 AT tweedledumb DOT cygnus DOT com> 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 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 -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3a iQCVAwUBM9T9++Qz770qyIfJAQHCXwP+PCbXiBLEDCdNWeIgmq9fX4F9U0nDWvnJ SiHJ61k3uoHIKRbZKE8SxHSNPDN2ztgILU9z1G/ElNaevN1QQ6kaRpZVCXhCSvSd yMHTA7Sq7eUK4rTXzL0w2R6TCObGUtmhsiL20RCwjWIAFgsk1wTBjXsfzn6Oi52x 9i5gWxDSxHc= =3NXT -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --==_Exmh_-555229926P-- - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".