Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:04:27 -0500
Message-Id: <199903170104.UAA18337@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: smorris AT nexen DOT com
CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to: <199903170043.TAA12533@brocade.nexen.com> (message from Steve
	Morris on Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:43:02 -0500 (EST))
Subject: Re: Cygwin license
References: <19990316130132 DOT 20506 DOT rocketmail AT send105 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
	<19990316104140 DOT A1113 AT cygnus DOT com>
	<199903161757 DOT MAA12041 AT brocade DOT nexen DOT com>
	<199903162021 DOT PAA20648 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<19990317090106 DOT 27622 AT mundook DOT cs DOT mu DOT OZ DOT AU>
	<199903162300 DOT SAA12402 AT brocade DOT nexen DOT com>
	<199903162315 DOT SAA17599 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <199903170043 DOT TAA12533 AT brocade DOT nexen DOT com>


> Specifically it should be possible for people to legally provide a
> service of compiling to binaries software that people already have a
> legal right to use. It is silly that Andy Piper, Earnie, Sergey et al
> are in technical violation of cygwin licensing terms when they are
> merely saving the rest of us time and effort.

The GPL was designed - by *lawyers* - to prevent people from
distributing a binary without sources.  A "legal right to use" is
irrelevent in this case, as the GPL's scope simply doesn't cover
*using* software (section 0, para 2).  The GPL requires that the
distribution of a binary imply availability of *those* sources
guaranteed by the distributer of the binary, regardless of whether or
not the recipient has a right to use.  The GPL also clearly states
that if for any reason you are unable to meet all the requirements of
the GPL, then the only way to satisfy the GPL is to not distribute the
software (binary or source) at all (section 7 para 1).

As far as Andy et al providing a "service" to others, yes I agree that
it's a good service.  However, they must *legally* put the sources
they used out there with the binaries.  The GPL requires it.  Patches
are not acceptable.  Relying on a third party's ftp site is not
acceptable.  If Andy puts out a binary for emacs, and the FSF stops
distributing emacs sources, Andy has broken the law.  Considering how
trivial it is to zip up the sources too, is it really a problem?

Note that this is different from the case where person A gives sources
to person B for person B to compile on behalf of person A.  In this
case, as long as B doesn't change the sources, the GPL is already met
because when B gives A the binary, B knows that A has the sources for
that binary.  B pedants could just give the sources back to A anyway,
but it wouldn't make a difference for A if they already have a copy.

PS: I'm not saying Andy *is* breaking the law.  I don't know.  Maybe
he does the right thing, maybe not.  It's just an example.  OK?

> We agree on everything except the interpretation of the GPL under
> the laws of the US.

Perhaps, but the GPL has been reviewed by many lawyers, and I feel
that it's a pretty solid legal document.  My "interpretation" of the
GPL is based on many lengthy conversations with RMS over the last 11
years, since none of these issues is new.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com