This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> There are no short-term plans to change the license of Cygwin, rather we
> just wait until the OSI certifies the GPLv3 as open source license
> according to the definitions. As Brian already noted, as soon as the
> OSI certifies the GPLv3, the exemption clause from
> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html will also cover GPLv3'ed packages.
IANAL, but I am a stickler for words, so if I may point out the following:
There has always been an understanding that a license has to be
OSI-approved to fall under the exception clause of the Cygwin license.
But the clause doesn't say "approved by the OSI", rather it says:
"... a license that complies with the Open Source definition ..."
Complies according to whom? If IMHO, the GPLv3 does comply with the
definition as published at the provided URL, who says I need to wait for
the OSI to actually certify it as such?
I understand that this goes against the general understanding that has
existed until now, but as we all have learned through following Groklaw,
it's not one's understanding of a contract that decides a case but the
actual language therein.
Could Red Hat's lawyers take another look at the language and provide
their opinion on this?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----