Cygwin license

Earnie Boyd
Wed Mar 17 10:23:00 GMT 1999

---Steve Morris <> wrote:
> I keep hammering on this issue because I believe that cygwin is much
> less valuable unless common tools, not part of the core set, are also
> available in binary form. It is unreasonable to expect every user of
> cygwin to collect all the sources for all useful utilities and build
> them.

Thanks, Steve, for hammering.  This issue needs to be "put to the
test" and I don't think this thread needs to be dropped yet as there
hasn't been a resolution.  

Currently, as I see it, the only way to keep compliance with all open
source licenses is to provide instructions on where to find the tools,
where to find the source and provide instructions on what to change
and how to build them yourself with warnings not to distribute the
binaries.  Bartlee first stated this as a suggestion (at least most of
it), I reiterated it and no one has yet made any comments to
contridict it.

If you plan to supply binaries using the cygwin1.dll then you must:
1) provide a means to obtain the source for that version of the
2) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that the
cygwin1.dll is dependent upon.
3) provide a means to obtain the source for the packages that you are
providing binaries for and ensure that those packages meet the
requirements for the GPL.

Does anyone disagree with this?

-                        \\||//
--                     --
-- --

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
Get your free address at

Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to

More information about the Cygwin mailing list