This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Help! Need B.20.1 src

On Sun, 2005-23-01 at 16:03 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 23 09:28, John Mellor wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-22-01 at 20:22 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 05:17:44PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> > > >I don't know if the ancient Bxx series was LGPL, but the current Cygwin
> > > >source is GPL which means you must provide not only the Cygwin DLL
> > > >source but also all the source of your app that links to it.
> > > >
> > > >There is a mailing list to discuss this: cygwin-licensing at cygwin dot
> > > >com.
> > > 
> > > I think that cygwin has been GPL since early 1997.
> > > 
> > > So, you're right.  I can't believe I missed this.  Anything that uses the
> > > Cygwin DLL is GPLed.
> > 
> > In fact, I cannot ship the source for the app if I wanted to, as that
> > would then publish some of the Customer's proprietary trade secrets.
> If you linked your application against the Cygwin DLL, then this
> application *is* GPL'd.  Full stop up to this point.  You don't
> have to publish the sources to the world, but you have to publish
> your sources to your customer.  Your customer has the right to
> get the source code of your application and the Cygwin DLL.  If
> you didn't do this so far, you're violating the license.
> > However, if I read the specific version of the GPL that is being used
> > for cygwin correctly, then it says:
> > 
> > > In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs
> > > whose sources are distributed under a license that complies with the
> > > Open Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a/cygwin1.dll
> > > without libcygwin.a/cygwin1.dll itself causing the resulting program
> > > to be covered by the GNU GPL.
> > > [...]
> > 
> > I believe that my app meets this criteria, and this then prevents me
> > from being between a rock and a hard place    ;^)
> I don't see how that applies to your application.  The above paragraph
> only mentions that open source applications are excempted from that rule,
> not proprietary software as yours.
> You have two choices:
> - Comply with the GPL in one way or the other, which always means your
>   application is also GPLed and you have to open the source code to
>   your customer.
> - Or, you ask Red Hat for a special Cygwin License according to this
>   paragraph on
>     Red Hat sells a special Cygwin License for customers who are unable
>     to provide their application in open source code form. For more
>     information, please see:,
>     or call +1-866-2REDHAT ext. 45300 (toll-free in the US)

Thanks for the clarification.  Yes, I read that incorrectly.

I have no problem passing on the full source code to the Customer (after
all, that's what they paid me to work on), but I can't pass it on to
other parties as it contains some code fragments that implement their
trade secrets, and doing so would violate the trade secrecy laws.

So, am I safe if I give the Customer the source for an app that is
linked against cygwin1.dll, but not also publish it to the whole world?

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

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