On Jul 1 08:16, Eric Blake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > According to Brian Dessent on 6/30/2007 10:12 PM: > >> So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin > >> forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the > >> fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll > >> constitutes a license violation? > > > > Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long > > as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin > > side. I don't know about the other direction though. > > Thanks for the reminder about the exception clause. Since packaging tar > 1.18 does not modify the sources to cygwin1.dll, I agree that the GPLv2 > exception offered by cygwin is applicable here. I don't think GPLv3 will > have any problem achieving OSI exemption, so I went ahead and uploaded tar > 1.18.
It's still an interesting point since the GPLv3 linked against a GPLv2 lib with excemption. I'll try to get legal advice about Cygwin and the GPLv3. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat