Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:03:14 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin License related Query....
Message-ID: <20021218200314.GA15823@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3E00CF0D DOT 90506 AT braemarinc DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E00CF0D.90506@braemarinc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:39:57PM -0600, Gary Van Sickle wrote:
>>If you are distributing cygwin1.dll and any of the executables that are
>>directly associated with it (mount.exe, umount.exe, cygcheck.exe, ps.exe,
>>kill.exe, cygpath.exe) then you must adhere to the GPL.  That means that
>>you have to make sources available to your customers.
>>
>>The fact that you haven't modified the code is irrelevant.  The GPL is
>>about making sure that people who have the binary versions of software
>>also have access to the source code.  We provide both the source code
>>and the binaries to you.  You need to pass that along to your customers,
>>*unless* you pursue other arrangements with Red Hat.
>>
>>Btw, I was trying to move this discussion off of the public list because
>>it probably isn't of much interest to people there.
>
>Well, perhaps, but I think those two paragraphs are the clearest and 
>most concise "layman's terms" explanation of Cygwin licensing I've read 
>to date.  All it needs is a "No, a link to the Cygwin site won't cut it" 
>paragraph and I'd say it would make a good FAQ.

My response was tailored to the requirements that were presented.  It is
not that simple.  I wouldn't want someone making the decision to release
a cygwin product based on a FAQ entry.

The bottom line is comply with the GPL or talk to someone at Red Hat about
licensing.  I think this is a pretty simple rule.

cgf

--
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/