-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 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? If IMHO, the GPLv3 does comply with the definition as published at the provided URL, who says I need to wait for the OSI to actually certify it as such? I understand that this goes against the general understanding that has existed until now, but as we all have learned through following Groklaw, it's not one's understanding of a contract that decides a case but the actual language therein. Could Red Hat's lawyers take another look at the language and provide their opinion on this? Yaakov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGiVuHpiWmPGlmQSMRCLYgAJ0cNmz2EDKIKcfXG6bNF+juzzzBPQCgyzAc Sn5F7WnnV568KZ+e41k3gPA= =GIYO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----