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
X-Authentication-Warning: eos.vss.fsi.com: ford owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:03:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brian Ford <ford AT vss DOT fsi DOT com>
X-X-Sender: ford AT eos
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: compiled files under GPL?
In-Reply-To: <2003926231118.437728@mopxp>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0309291546390.284@eos>
References: <2003926231118 DOT 437728 AT mopxp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by delorie.com id h8TL4EJJ017296

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Matthew O. Persico wrote:

> 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?
>
IANAL
YANALATEYHSMBSI

In-house use is normally not in violation of the GPL.

In your example, as long as your program is never sold or distributed in
binary form (ie. you did not sell or give it to the bank in binary
form because the bank owned your labor that created it), and the bank
never sells or distributes the binaries outside itself, I think you are
ok.

Since these types of distinctions look legally cloudy to me, I would
hesitate strongly to agree with your "goes by the wayside for all
non-software development companies" statement.

That said, you should consult a lawyer.  No one on this list is
a qualified GPL authority.  Only the courts can make a determination.

CGF, the closest person here to an authority, hates GPL conversations.
Don't expect him to speak up unless you are clearly in violation, or this
conversation has already (as it probably has) gone on too long.

-- 
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax:   314-551-8444

--
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/