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, 16 Jul 2003 17:16:18 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-idd AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: License question about cygwin
Message-ID: <20030716211618.GD17135@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3E2D8043936AD611AF7D00508B5E9F4B48B482 AT server3 DOT mobilecom DOT com> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 55 DOT 0307161635340 DOT 3852 AT ellixia> <011401c34bdb$58df0e00$c800000a AT docbill0001>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <011401c34bdb$58df0e00$c800000a@docbill0001>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 04:46:24PM -0400, Bill C Riemers wrote:
>The answer isn't quite that simple.  The correct answer, is that it depends
>on the details of what you are doing.  I could go into more details, but
>this topic has already been moderated once.  It would be inappropriate for
>me to discuss it again on this list.
>
>If you wish to discuss it privately, feel free to e-mail me directly at
>docbill AT freeshell DOT org.

I am not sure why you are offering private advice on this.  It would
seem that you are setting yourself up as an expert here, which is pretty
dangerous.  The bottom line is that if you want to be sure that your use
of cygwin jives with the GPL and with Red Hat's licensing, your best bet
is to either consult a lawyer or maybe consult Red Hat itself.
Obviously Red Hat's opinions may suffer from some bias but you could at
least be sure that you won't receive a letter from a lawyer if you come
to the joint conclusion that your use of cygwin and its DLLs is
acceptable.

Arm chair opinions on this topic are quite popular.  Sometimes they are
wrong.  Sometimes they are right.  Sometimes they laughably argue
rationales and reasons for why Red Hat licenses things the way they do.
I even saw one expression of outrage that Red Hat should charge for this
at all, the argument being that Red Hat did not develop most of the
code!  Huh?

Anyway, as I seem to need to be saying on a weekly basis, discussions of
the GPL are best handled elsewhere.  Discussions of Red Hat's licenses
are best discussed with Red Hat.  If you don't agree with either of
those two statements, well, then gee.  Here's where I get to be mean.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/