Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3BA2A00F.1070009@home.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:25:51 -0400 From: "David A. Cobb" Organization: Excite/AtHome User on Cox Cable User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Wilson CC: Cygwin Library General Discussion , NewLib Discussion Subject: Re: Licensing Issues? References: <3B9FD58F DOT 7000308 AT home DOT com> <3B9FDC6C DOT 2000502 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Wilson wrote: > David A. Cobb wrote: > >> Would someone in the know please explain why there are licensing >> issues between GLibC and Newlib? Are they not both GPL? >> > > Sigh. this has been explained so many times I am surprised your search > of the archives did not reveal it. You *did* search the archives, right? > > Cygnus (now Red Hat) releases cygwin under two licenses: the GPL and a > proprietary license. People who purchase cygwin under the proprietary > license are allowed to distribute cygwin-based binaries WITHOUT > distributing their source code. (You may not like this arrangement, but > it's the way things are. Besides, the proceeds pay Chris' and Corinna's > and others' salaries...) Yes, I knew that much. > > Anyway, ONLY the copyright owner of a particular work is allowed to > establish the license terms. If you take GPL code that you do not own, > you can't change the license -- although the GPL gives you certain > redistribution rights. OK, one cannot simply "borrow" (steal) from it even when it's open. > > Since Red Hat needs to specify the license, they need to own the code. > They don't own the glibc code. Therefore they can't use it (as part of > cygwin1.dll -- e.g. newlib) [This also explains why everybody who > contributes to cgywin1.dll must sign over copyright to Red Hat]. And glibc is, I presume, owned by FSF. > > --Chuck Must one then observe "white room" conditions when developing, say, for a piece to go into newlib & cgywin1? That is, carefully avoid knowing /anything/ about the glibc implementation? To what extent may one legitimately learn from a free-speech program without actually extracting code? This is very much like an old question about what, precisely, is copyrighted. Once upon a time I knew the answer - the exact program text. But that was before the new copyright laws and the days of software patents. A library such as this must implement a very well-defined result; it would be pretty surprising if two implementations did not have a great deal in common. Even short sequences, at least, of instructions are very likely in both. -- David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate, All around nice guy. New PGP key 09/13/2001: : : Fingerprint=0x{E7C6_4EE2_6B75_5BA3_C52E__77FA_63C3_9366_DCFB_229B} "By God's Grace I am a Christian man, by my actions a great sinner." --The Way of a Pilgrim, R. M. French [tr.] Potentially Viral Software is any software for which you are not allowed to examine the source. Do not buy or use Potentially Viral Software! -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/