On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > Harold, > > > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > > > > > >>Igor, > >> > >>Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >> > >>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Steinar Bang wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>Igor Pechtchanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> > >>>>[snip!] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to distribute the resulting > >>>>>application, because anything linked with cygwin1.dll automatically > >>>>>becomes GPLd. If you could find an open-source JDK, this problem > >>>>>would not arise. > >>>> > >>>>IANAL, but... can this be right? > >>>> > >>>>If I write an application for UNIX/linux and make it available under > >>>>some other license than GPL, and someone else ports it to CygWin, I > >>>>don't see how this would automatically make my application be GPL'd? > >>>> > >>>>An in any case, this would only apply to the JDK in this case. A Java > >>>>application running inside the JDK shouldn't be affected in any way. > >>>> > >>>>Ah well. Off-topic I guess. And it isn't even Friday anymore. > >>> > >>> > >>>Steinar, > >>> > >>>Well, there has been plenty of GPL discussion on the Cygwin list -- let's > >>>not also start it on cygwin-xfree. However, since this involves something > >>>I said, I'd like to correct one misunderstanding: if you release your > >>>application under some licence that's not compatible with GPL (as defined > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >>>by FSF), whoever ports your application to Cygwin and distributes it is > >>>*in violation* of the GPL (but that does not make your application GPL -- > >>>you, as the author, completely control the licensing terms). For more > >>>information, please review the numerous discussions on the Cygwin list or > >>>contact a GPL discussion list. > >>> Igor > >> > >>Right, I agree that we are not discussing this here. However, I think > >>that your comment was either simply wrong, or not allowing for the > >>possibility (which he seems to be indicating) that his application would > >>be released under an "Open Source" compatible license. From the Cygwin > >>licensing page (http://cygwin.com/licensing.html): > >> > >>"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 without libcygwin.a > >>itself causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL." > >> > >> > >>So, since this isn't really a case of things being "automatically > >>GPL'd", lets just forget it. > >> > >>Harold > > > > > > Isn't that what I said (see underlined part above)? But you're right, > > let's just forget it. > > Igor > > Igor, > > I don't know that the majority of readers would know that "not in > violation of the GPL" and "complies with the Open Source definition" > sort of mean the same thing. The latter at least points them to the so > called Open Source definition, while the former leaves them hanging, > wondering if their license is in violation or not. > > Harold
Oops, I guess some more clarification (of what I said) is in order. No license is ever in violation of the GPL. It could be *incompatible* with GPL (as defined in the GPL FAQ), in which case porting the program with such license to Cygwin is a violation of the GPL (on Cygwin). But, as I should have stated initially, IANAL, so you may safely ignore anything I say ;-) (<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#IANAL>). Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
