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
Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E02A@IIS000>
From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com>
To: "'DJ Delorie'" <dj AT delorie DOT com>, mdejong AT cygnus DOT com
Cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: RE: Things you can do with Cygwin
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 10:56:54 +0200 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id DAA25583

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [mailto:dj AT delorie DOT com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 10:20 PM
> To: mdejong AT cygnus DOT com
> Cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
> Subject: Re: Things you can do with Cygwin
> 
> 
> 
> > We need to remember that the GPL has never been tested in court so
> > sitting around declaring what it might mean strikes me as a waste of
> > time.
> 
> Just because the GPL hasn't been to court doesn't mean it never will.
> If it does go to court, would you rather have a full understanding of
> what's going to happen, or would you rather be blindsided?
> 
> The GPL was designed by lawyers, not programmers.  They used the term
> "work" for a reason.  *If* it went to court, the court would decide if
> the software in question was one work, or separate works.  It's my
> understanding that making that kind of decision isn't new to the
> courts, although the GPL would be, and that they would simply decide
> one way or the other based on the evidence and that would be the end
> of it.
> 
> > The static linking case is clear.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > Dynamic linking is not so clear, it is likely covered by the GPL but
> > who knows for sure.
> 
> My claim is that the fact that it's dynamically linked is irrelevent;
> all that is relevent is whether there are two independent works
> involved, or only one.

Yes, but I think there is different works as soon as these can be used
independently; obviously a proprietary work that can be used on CYGWIN,
Linux, HPux, Solaris, etc is NOT a derived work of CYGWIN but a separate
work (especially if it was FIRST available on other OSes, then ported on
CYGWIN).

In fact CYGWIN on WIN32 may be seen as yet another POSIX-compatible OS and
it seems difficult to argue that some work that can be used on it is not a
different work.

Regards,

		Bernard

PS: as usual be careful, IANAL :-)

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com
		b DOT dautrevaux AT usa DOT net
-------------------------------------------- 

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