Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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 Jun 2004 15:56:20 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: License issue
Message-ID: <20040616135620.GF1365@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <200406151352 DOT i5FDq4Xn016176 AT mx3 DOT redhat DOT com> <20040615140643 DOT GS1365 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <40D022B6 DOT 5020306 AT luukku DOT com> <20040616111152 DOT GD1365 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20040616121155 DOT GC30166 AT ata DOT cs DOT hacettepe DOT edu DOT tr> <20040616124519 DOT GC25094 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20040616125927 DOT GD30166 AT ata DOT cs DOT hacettepe DOT edu DOT tr> <20040616131048 DOT GF25094 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20040616133842 DOT GE30166 AT ata DOT cs DOT hacettepe DOT edu DOT tr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040616133842.GE30166@ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i

On Jun 16 16:38, Baurjan Ismagulov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:10:48PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > We don't distribute Cygwin under the 3b clause so that doesn't count
> > > > here at all.
> > > This was my point. I couldn't find this on the web page; I'd like to see
> > > it mentioned (please point me to the text if I overlooked it).
> > It's not there.  Seriously, did you see a *written* offer from Red Hat,
> > to give any third party, [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the
> > corresponding source code [...]?
> 
> Erm, let me express myself more clearly. I've meant mentioning the
> exclusion of 3b, not its inclusion.
> 
> Suppose the following scenario: a company wishes to distribute an
> application that uses cygwin1.dll. It reads
> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html and http://cygwin.com/COPYING and
> decides to proceed according to section 3b. It prepares two CD-ROMs, one
> with the binaries and one with the sources (both for the application and
> cygwin1.dll). Only the first one is distributed (with a source code
> offer); the second is available on request.
> 
> This is a real case; what I fail to see is, how the legal dept. should
> know that the section 3b of GPL is foreclosed?

No, that's not the case.  If this company decides to fulfill the GPL
by offering the sources under the 3b clause, that's fine.  But that's
not the easiest way to go since it requires to create the written offer
and to keep the exact sources used for the original project handy for at
least three years.  What this company can not do is, to rely on Red Hat
to keep sources for three years and then point their customers to the
Red Hat web page.  If they do, they are infringing the licensing.

Can we stop discussing that now?  We had this point already a lot in
the past.  You should find it in the ML archives.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Co-Project Leader          mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
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/