[RFC] apache-cygwin licensing conflicts

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 11:38:40PM +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>this is a request for comments on the issue of integrating our apache
>port to the official Apache Group distribution. I'm currently dealing
>with the guys from apache.org to add our cygwin patch to their
>distribution.
>
>At least adding the patch to the source distribution would not violate
>any of both -- cygwin nor apache -- licensing agreements since the
>cygwin license only applies for binaries, is that right?
>
>Unfortunatly any binary distrbution would ether violate the cygwin or
>apache license, since both _would_ apply to the binary.
>
>Someone of you "officials" at Cygnus has stated that Cygnus may grand
>flexible privilidges at least for special purposes or occations for the
>cygwin library license. Since apache is an huge and accepted project and
>we would allow Win32 based users to use a posix complatible apache
>version beside the commercial Win32 native MSVC version this would be a
>great opportunity.
>
>May it be possible -- regarding Cygnus officials side -- to grand a more
>flexible and compatible licensing term to be able to fully support the
>cygwin platform within the apache official distrbution?

Here's a copy of the CYGWIN_LICENSE that will be showing up in B21.
Hopefully, it answers your questions.

I don't know if you are planning on distributing a cygwin DLL.  If you
are then the GPL applies.  You must supply or be willing to supply
the version of the sources that were used to build the cygwin DLL you
are distributing.

cgf