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: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:29:32 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: License question
Message-ID: <20030311202932.GC6122@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030310044234 DOT GD18023 AT redhat DOT com> <000101c2e794$06f39d00$825bd38c AT prndelllaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <000101c2e794$06f39d00$825bd38c@prndelllaptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:04:01PM -0800, Pete Nordquist wrote:
>Thank you, Christopher, for your quick reply.  I didn't mean to imply
>that every binary produced by gcc is GPLed.

I'm not sure how you could take your assertion any other way unless you
think there is something special about cygwin in this regard.

>I am relatively new to licensing, am not a lawyer and am trying to
>reconcile what I read in the GPL and LGPL with how binaries are
>produced.  The "In addition ...  " text you quoted below certainly
>seems to cover my question, but I can't find this text in either the
>GPL or the LGPL.  Have I just missed it in the GPL and LGPL, or should
>I be looking somewhere else for this text?  Thank you for your
>consideration,

I found the text in applicable gcc sources.

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/