X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4AC1E749.6040504@cisra.canon.com.au> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:54:01 +1000 From: Luke Kendall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Four license questions that affect commercial use of Cygwin References: <4AC1D0E4 DOT 3030908 AT cisra DOT canon DOT com DOT au> <20090929094557 DOT GD7193 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4AC1E226 DOT 10403 AT cisra DOT canon DOT com DOT au> <20090929103734 DOT GE7193 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> In-Reply-To: <20090929103734.GE7193@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TSM-Policy: FAIL X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Sep 29 20:32, Luke Kendall wrote: >> Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> So, sure, Red Hat *could* do that, but that would mean to take over >>> responsibility for something which is in the responsibility of the user >>> in the first place. Eventually only a lawyer can make sure you comply, >>> but, apart from the responsibility, the job of a lawyer isn't exactly >>> for free. So this is a job to redirect to *your* legal department. >> I don't think my four questions asked for legal advice, > > In a way, yes. Licensing is dangerous territory. If we claim there's > no exception from A and somebody find that exception, it's a sure way > to be sued. I, for one, can do without that. > >> As an engineer, [...] > > As a lawyer, [...] :-) > I'm with you on the engineering side, since I hate to reinvent the > wheel same as you do. However, this isn't technical, this is legal > and as such I stay away as much as possible. Fair enough! >>> As for licenses with commercial exceptions, personally (IANAL, and I'm >>> not speaking for Red Hat, nor for the Cygwin community at large, nor did >>> I actually search for it) I think there is none in the distro, except >>> for the Cygwin license itself. >> I can't see anything in http://cygwin.com/licensing.html that says >> Cygwin can't be used for commercial purposes (thank goodness!). Maybe >> you meant something else. >> >>> And that only applies to exceptions from the GPL. > > You ignored the above sentence, which was the important one. I confess I didn't ignore it, I just couldn't understand it. Trying again now, I think you meant that there were no exceptions that applied only in commercial situations, except some exceptions relating to the GPL (looking at the license, I think it's related to redistribution of code that depends on GPL stuff). I don't think you mean it is saying "you are not allowed to use Cygwin within a company, Cygwin is only for personal or scientific non-commercial research", and I'm happy that I can't see that. :-) luke > Corinna > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple