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: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:34:15 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: OpenSSH on windows Problem
Message-ID: <20040903163415.GF9839@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <BAY9-DAV22djnnWLwf400019998 AT hotmail DOT com> <loom DOT 20040902T202705-585 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20040902204046 DOT GB29071 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20040903153501 DOT GB3692 AT scripps DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040903153501.GB3692@scripps.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:35:01AM -0700, David A. Case wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>This is really really simple and I don't know why it is so confusing.
>>
>>If your program uses the cygwin DLL, then your program is GPLed.
>
>On possible reason for confusion is that statments like this one (which
>have appeared many times on this list) are poorly worded.

What an arrogant statement.  I was trying to distill this down to
simple, clear sentences.  There is a lot more that can be said about
this but, if you really don't understand if you are affected then you
need to consult both technical and legal help.

>It would be better to say something like this: If you distribute a
>program linked to the cygwin DLL without making that program available
>under the GPL (or an equivalent allowable license) you are in violation
>of the license under which you received the cygwin DLL in the first
>place.
>
>It is possible, but unlikely, that a court could order a remedy that
>would force you to distribute your program under the GPL.  It is not
>that case that violating the cygwin license means that "your program is
>GPLed" in some instantaneous or automatic fashion, simply as
>consequence of your bad behavior.

That is entirely debatable and you have no basis for making such an
authoritative statement.

>Fears that programs might somehow be automatically forced under the GPL
>may help propagate the (false) perception that the GPL is "viral".

When you use the cygwin DLL in your program and distribute it, you are
implicitly agreeing to the license terms of the cygwin DLL.  That means
that you must adhere to the GPL, ergo your program is GPLed.

It is Red Hat's intent that the only acceptable use of the cygwin DLL
should be in accordance with the GPL as described on the cygwin
licensing page.

If you are distributing your program without checking on the licensing
of the software that it uses, then you get what you deserve.

If you want to debate the fine points of the law, then either contact
Red Hat directly or find another mailing list.  Until then, my poorly
worded statements will have to serve as the definitive answer for this
topic.
--
Christopher Faylor			spammer? ->	aaaspam AT sourceware DOT org
Cygwin Co-Project Leader				aaaspam AT duffek DOT com
TimeSys, 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/