Re: CygWin GPLing by proxy (Was: Cannot display through rsh)

[Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>]

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 <pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu>:
> >>
> >>[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
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,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