Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:36:02 -0500
Message-Id: <200002072136.QAA23196@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: jaboyer AT duke-energy DOT com
CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to: <8525687E.00734594.00@deinet01.dukepower.com>
	(jaboyer AT duke-energy DOT com)
Subject: Re: Questions About CygWin and Licensing
References:  <8525687E DOT 00734594 DOT 00 AT deinet01 DOT dukepower DOT com>


Note that these are all my opinion; I can get you in touch with the
Right People here if you need more authoritative answers.

> As part of the installation process we install your product Cygnus
> Tools (i.  eCygWin).

The package as we distribute it is called "Cygwin".  I don't know what
"eCygWin" is; it may be modified from our original distribution.

>  - Most importantly, is the vendor complying with the license
> agreement for your product? I am not very familiar with the GPL
> licensing methods, but it appears that they may not be. I assume the
> key is how the product is used. I do know that the source is not
> included by the vendor.

The easiest way to tell is to request the sources.  Just ask them:
"Did you ship us the sources for Cygwin?"  If they say no, then say
"Well, please ship them to us."  If they don't, they're not complying.
Also, check to see which cygwin components they are including (dll,
gcc, bash, whatever) and ask for those sources by name.  Note: they
are *not* allowed to say "it's on cygnus's web site".  They gave you
the binaries, *they* are responsible for getting you the sources for
*those* binaries.  Also, if they didn't ship the sources up front, you
must already have a written promise to ship them, good for three
years.  If you don't have that, that's also a boo-boo on their part.
If you think they're not in compliance, especially if they don't make
an effort to become compliant, please let us (privately) know so we
can investigate.

Of course, they might have purchased a commercial license as well,
although we wouldn't have sold them one for B20.

> - Would it not be better to use the commerical version instead as it
> is offically supported.

Yes (because it's newer), and you can purchase a commercial license
that allows non-GPL distribution.  But, the support may not be as
comprehensive as you expect, and net support for net releases is also
pretty good support.  Plus, any version change would require much
testing on their part to ensure that the new version doesn't introduce
problems in their applications.

> - Also if a third party provides the product, are they responsible
> to support it. Even if it is the commerical version.

Well, Cygnus (er, Red Hat) doesn't allow transfer of support (unless
they negotiated otherwise, but if they did they would have made a big
deal about it).  If they buy a support contract, we support *them*,
not their customers.  Even then, our support package for cygwin is for
running the development tools, not using it in a commercial product.

>  - And last a technical question: As cygwin provides its own posix
> api, I assume it will work on a machine that already has had the NT
> posix api removed.

Cygwin doesn't rely on the "Posix subsystem" you are talking about, so
it should work without it.

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