This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
On Jul 2 15:09, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> 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?
Read http://cygwin.com/licensing.html again:
See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html for the
precise Open Source Definition referenced above.
Even if the license is not approved, the above definition sets the rules
against which the license is measured.
> Could Red Hat's lawyers take another look at the language and provide
> their opinion on this?
Been there, done that. Regardless of the exact wording, somebody
who wants to ignore the licensing issue will do anyway.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com