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
From: "Matthew O. Persico" <persicom AT acedsl DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>, Brian Ford <ford AT vss DOT fsi DOT com>
CC: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:11:18 -0400
Message-ID: <2003926231118.437728@mopxp>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0309262023120.3193@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: compiled files under GPL?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h8R3BWka030545

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>
>>> Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's
>>> gcc/g++ is
>>> automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some
>>> violating...
>>> sorry.
>>
>> This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default.  Unless
>> you have
>> purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
>
> There are some exceptions, IIRC.  For more information, see
> <http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136> or consult a lawyer.
> Igor

I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg your indulgence. From the link above:

"To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out any binaries, you must also make the source available. "

Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source exposed, etc.

BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies.

Is that a reasonable interpretation?

--
Matthew O. Persico



--
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/