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

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

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 <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
>
> 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/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		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