On Jul 2 15:09, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > There are no short-term plans to change the license of Cygwin, rather we > > just wait until the OSI certifies the GPLv3 as open source license > > according to the definitions. As Brian already noted, as soon as the > > OSI certifies the GPLv3, the exemption clause from > > http://cygwin.com/licensing.html will also cover GPLv3'ed packages. > > IANAL, but I am a stickler for words, so if I may point out the following: > > There has always been an understanding that a license has to be > OSI-approved to fall under the exception clause of the Cygwin license. > But the clause doesn't say "approved by the OSI", rather it says: > > "... a license that complies with the Open Source definition ..." > > Complies according to whom?
Read http://cygwin.com/licensing.html again: See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html for the precise Open Source Definition referenced above. Even if the license is not approved, the above definition sets the rules against which the license is measured. > Could Red Hat's lawyers take another look at the language and provide > their opinion on this? Been there, done that. Regardless of the exact wording, somebody who wants to ignore the licensing issue will do anyway. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat