This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor []
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:39:46AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On our
> >> >SourceForge downloads page we distribute a source 
> tarball, a few binary
> >> >RPMs, and a Cygwin binary package.
> >> 
> >> And a cygwin source package, hopefully, if you want to be 
> in compliance
> >> with the GPL.  
> >
> >Not so.  Section 3c of the GPL exempts noncommercial 
> distributors from
> >having to carry the source.  They can simply point you to where they
> >downloaded the code themselves.
> You mean this section:
>     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
>     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
>     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
>     received the program in object code or executable form with such
>     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> Who made the offer to continue to include the sources to whatever is
> being distributed?  Not me.  I don't want to have to track the PRC
> project and make sure that I don't delete, say, the Cygwin 1.3.2
> sources because they are still using them.

I think there'(s a bit of misunderstanding here: What john says was that it
was distributing:
	several binary distributions of PRC-tools (as cygwin tarballs and
	one source distribution of PRC-tools (as a source tarball)

He thus complies with the GPL.

Note that he explicitely says he was NOT distributing Cygwin, just provide a
proper setup.ini so that the setup.exe used to install Cygwin from the
official cygwin web site (or any other source AFAAIC). 

I don't see where there would be ANY GPL concern with this (although, as
usual, IANAL).

> >You shouldn't give John a hard time; the PRC-Tools project is a free
> >software project in much the same spirit as Cygwin.  In fact, the two
> >projects are very similar: a GCC port to a non-Unix 
> platform, for making
> >binaries native to that platform.
> "Why are you giving me a hard time! I'm a free software 
> project!".  Yes,
> we hear this from time to time.  The GPL is a legal binding document.
> If you want to use it, you should be in compliance with it.  You don't
> get to ignore it because you consider yourself "one of the good guys".
> It would be nice if life worked that way, but it doesn't.

IMHO John is perfectly complying with the GPL. What I would say is, rather
than "don't be ruide with me, I'm a free project programmer" would be "Don't
start thinking I will not comply with the GPL for your product; I'm already
complying for mine, so check before ranting :-)"
> >Now, if John were still working for Palm and posting from a
> >address, you'd be justified in being picky about the GPL.  
> But he's not,
> >and you shouldn't.

I'm not sure I agree; there is people working for commercial companies
producing GPL code and complying with the GPL; I think you know some :-)

> >
> >> Not surprising since this isn't a goal for setup.exe.  
> It's really only
> >> intended to install cygwin packages.
> >
> >What makes PRC-Tools "not a Cygwin package" and, say, tcltk "a Cygwin
> >package"?  Both are programming language systems that live within the
> >Cygwin environment.
> The PRC-Tools are not distributed from the cygwin web site.  They are
> not an official cygwin package.  Do I really have to explain this?

So, setup.exe is *restricted* to install *official* cygwin packages? a bit
too harsh I think.

> >> I've got mixed feelings about putting concessions for
> >> other packages in setup.  It isn't really supposed to be a 
> general purpose
> >> installation tool.
> >
> >Keep in mind, this isn't a case of using setup.exe to install a
> >standalone package.  PRC-Tools on Windows is always used 
> inside a Cygwin
> >environment.  John is just trying to make it simpler to make 
> a PRC-Tools
> >distribution tarball that Cygwin's own installation tools will accept
> >and install.
> Yes, that was perfectly clear.  Obviously, the whole reason 
> for contacting
> the cygwin mailing list was that PRC tools use Cygwin.  That 
> makes them
> a package that uses cygwin.  It doesn't automatically make 
> them an official
> cygwin package.  Any more than saying that some package that uses RPM
> is an official part of the Red Hat distribution.
> It apparently isn't clear to you that "Cygwin's own 
> installation tools"
> were meant to install, um, the cygwin packages from the 
> cygwin web site
> and mirrors.  They don't have accomodations for using other 
> web sites or
> being bundled as part of a larger package.  That is what I was saying
> above.

Was that a "for now and ever" position, and are then patches to allow to
install "unofficial" cygwin packages with setup.exe forcibly refused? 

I personally would have think of setup.exe as *the* tool to manage a cygwin
installation, like rpm is *the* tool to manage a Red Hat linux install or
addpkg is *the* tool to manage a Solaris (or is it an HPux) system. That,
for me, has meant that i should try to provide my own packages in a form
suitable for installation/uninstallation by setup.exe.

If I'm wrong, I will then try to use RPM or some other fancy installer and
have to tinker it to be able to pick cygwin configuration data so that I
install my package in a sensible way, with sensible defaults, in an exsiting
cygwin install... Phew, do I really need to do that? ;-(


Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]