Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Pete Nordquist" To: Subject: RE: License question Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:52:46 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c2e84a$d85eca70$6501a8c0@prndelllaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030311202932.GC6122@redhat.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 I found the text where you suggested. Thank you again, Pete Nordquist Assistant Professor of Computer Science Southern Oregon University nordquip AT sou DOT edu 541/552-6148 -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:30 PM To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: License question 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/