Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: hmmm possible gpl problem?
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:05:23 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F131L2XV4sY9OIerEAM0000f1fa@hotmail.com>

Okay ... not to push this on too much further hopefully, but i felt that i 
should respond to this one...

>
>Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
>>>okay  - i dont claim to know anything much about gpl ...
>>>but - http://www.tux.org/pub/security/secnet/tools/nat10/
>>>(which is the only place I found it in a quick google search)
>>>distributes a gpl program linked against cygwin.dll (note not 
>>>cygwin1.dll)
>>>without cygwin source.
>>>
>>>Going on past emails, this looks faulty, but thought i would post it here
>>>for
>>>someone with more experience in such matters to comment.
>
>
>Nope, it's okay.  If cygwin were licensed under the pure GPL, then you
>would be correct.  However, the cygwin license, in accordance with
>section 10 of the GPL, has an exception: if you don't distribute
>cygwin1.dll itself, then you needn't distribute the sources to
>cygwin1.dll (even if your binary -- which you DO distribute -- is linked
>with libcygwin.a[the import lib for cygwin1.dll]).  However, in that
>case, you're still required to distribute the sources(*) of YOUR program
>if you distribute its cygwin-linked binary -- even though, without
>cygwin1.dll, the program is inoperable.

Sorry I didnt make myself clear.
This site Is distributing cygwin.dll (not cygwin1.dll) (at least in the zip 
file version)

>
>See http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>
>(*) further requirement: you must release your sources under a license
>compatible with the Open Source Definition:
>http://www.opensource.org/osd.html and not just any old "look but don't
>touch" license.
>
>
>>
>>I really don't think that it would be appropriate to start a fox hunt
>>for
>>everyone that could be violating the gpl in this or the other minor way.
>
>
>Granted -- we all have better things to do.  I think this message, and
>the recent vcdimager/etc thread, were both just something people
>stumbled onto in the course of other activities.

yeap - precisely.

>
>In the case of the vcdimager issue recently discussed on this list, I
>was downloading it *because I wanted to used it*, and when I installed
>it, it didn't work: cygwin DLL conflicts.  This clued me that the
>program (a) used cygwin [Cool!!] and (b) distributed cygwin1.dll
>[conflicted with my "real" cygwin installation; not cool.]  I was

maybe this is what caused the program to crash when i ran it, but i suspect 
not, since its linked against cygwin.dll - not cygwin1.dll, which i wouldnt 
expect to conflict with my cygwin1.dll (Although maybe i am just plain 
wrong:P).  However it was reminiscint of the vcdimager stuff, so i brought 
it up.

<snip lots of gpl stuff>

Basically, I dont care much, but thought that it would be unfair to not at 
least let the people who Might care (aka cygwin developers) know that it 
exists.

Regards,
Gareth
(ponders if he should do up a new version of nano before or after the 1.2 
release)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


--
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/