This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: About Cygwin license
- From: Larry Hall <cygwin-lh at cygwin dot com>
- To: "Hughes, Bill" <Bill dot Hughes at cox dot co dot uk>, "'cygwin at cygwin dot com'" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:59:16 -0500
- Subject: RE: About Cygwin license
- References: <5D60432AF619D81183C80002A5419F5D07F532@nnhmsw1.cox.co.uk>
- Reply-to: Cygwin List <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
At 09:46 AM 12/11/2003, Hughes, Bill you wrote:
>Sent: 11 December 2003 14:28 From: Igor Pechtchanski
>> Common sense dictates that socket connections cannot be thought of as
>> "linking" (which is what the GPL covers). After all, connecting with a
>> proprietary ssh client to a GPL'd ssh daemon on Linux doesn't make the
>> client GPL'd (AFAIK). Now, if your program is actually linked to some of
>> PostgreSQL DLLs, that's a whole different story...
>Isn't PostgreSQL under a BSD license anyway so that wouldn't be a worry
>unless this is a Cygwin dll for PostgreSQL?
Let's not have another discussion on this list about the GPL. There's
better places to do that. Also, as <http://cygwin.com/licensing.html>
points out, it doesn't matter what license the software distributed with
Cygwin is. If it uses cygwin1.dll, which *is* GPL'd, it's GPL'd. This
should be enough information for any individual to make his or her own
decision about whether any particular Cygwin package is GPL'd and what
affect that has on any proprietary application built on top of these.
As Igor points out though, if someone needs a definitive answer on the
implications and applicability of the GPL to their proprietary application,
they need to consult a lawyer.
The original question asked in this thread has been answered. Please let
the thread die now.
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html