This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org
mailing list for the Cygwin project. See the Cygwin
home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Re: Cygwin license
- To: DJ Delorie <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Cygwin license
- From: Bartlee Anderson <banders@EC.Rockwell.COM>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:37:39 -0600
- CC: DAUTREVAUX@microprocess.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
- References: <8135911A809AD211AF6300A02480D175034935@iis000.microdata.fr> <199903191516.KAA00938@envy.delorie.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
If we get back to what all started this, I think that if you make
instructions on where
to get cygwin and set it up. And instructions for getting and compiling
whatever source you can't release under GPL to those who need to run them.
have given the end result desired (giving your executable by allowing it to
without having to distribute and therefore falling under the GPL. Simply
redistribution of created code. You can make it a directive to those to whom
give the software, and explain that if they wish to redistribute, they can
$8000 license from Cygnus. That should make it clear that they don't want to
Now, can we do some development!?
DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Doeas that mean that my fancy shell script that use some bash-only
> > feature, and is as such totally unusable WITHOUT bash, must then be
> > GPLed?... I think this is neither what the GPL says nor enforceable or
> > useful...
> The GPL has exceptions for things that normally come with the
> operating system, like bash. Plus, bash can be used without your
> script, but the cygwin dll can't be used without a program that's
> designed to use it.
> > You are saying that Micro$oft would be able to earn money from Cygwin
> > just by saying that any program that requires Windows to run must pay a
> > royalties to Micro$oft as it falls under some fine-print in Micro$oft
> > Windows license?...
> They would have to apply to all programs indiscriminately, and I think
> the Justice Dept would frown upon it ;-)
> However, there's a difference between an established OS changing its
> terms to its advantage late in the game, and a small toolkit whose
> terms have been the same since its first release.
> > If a program do NOT include crt0.o nor libcygwin.a, then I do not
> > see why it would fall under the GPL more than any program that
> > references kernel32.dll would have any possible restriction from
> > Micro$oft.
> The definition of "program" in the GPL isn't limited to a single file.
> If your "program" consists of two files, which won't work separate
> from each other, then the "program" consists of both files, and terms
> of each must be applied to both.
> As for the Microsoft analogy, they license Windows in such a way that
> you can use it the way you describe. They could have chosen other
> terms, but their goal was to *sell* as many copies of Windows as
> possible. Our goals are different, thus our terms are different.
> > If your program can operate without Windows, then you don't have to pay
> > anything to Micro$oft, but if you *require* windows, then your customer
> > has to obtain the right to use Windows;
> We're not talking about the right to *use* cygwin. The GPL doesn't
> cover right to *use*. It only covers redistribution. You can write
> whatever cywin programs you wish, and use them however you wish, but
> if you want to give them to a friend you must give them the full
> sources also.
> The GPL also has an exception for "software that is normally part of
> the OS". The MS dlls would fall into this category because they
> normally come with Windows. The cygwin dll would not, as it does not
> normally come with Windows.
> > It seems that Micro$oft is here more friendly to the developer than
> > Cygnus:
> Microsoft doesn't give you the sources to Windows. I find that very
> > you are aloowed to develop code that *require* Windows without
> > having to pay anything to Micro$oft, and you can do what you want with
> > your code.
> But MS doesn't let you distribute copies of kernel32.dll with your
> applications, either.
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Bartlee A. Anderson Opinions my own, 3CS Development
Rockwell International not Rockwell's Electronic Commerce
300 Bauman Ct. MS 933-607 Wood Dale, IL 60191
email@example.com FAX (630) 227-8040 VOICE (630) 227-8975
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org