RE: cygwin and GPL (again)

["Dennis McCunney" <mccunney at bellatlantic dot net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 2001. February 14. 22:36
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
>
> >> As a somewhat more realistic example, if I distribute source
> >> code under conditions other than the GPL, and suggest to users
> >> that they could use the cygwin package to compile my code on
> >> their Windows machine, would such a suggestion somehow make the
> >> source code free software?
> >
> >The essense of free software is that the folks who use it
> >_can_ get the source code.  The essense of the GPL is that
> >you will provide the source code, and that you will _tell_
> >the people who use your application that you will do so.
> >Most of the questions about the GPL here have taken the form
> >of "Do I have to distribute my source _with_ my application,
> >or can I provide it seperately?"  My understanding of the GPL
> >is that you _can_ provide it seperately, as long as you make
> >clear to the users you _will_ do so, and that you do so in a
> >fashion convenient to the users.  Many folks don't want/can't
> >use the source, but those that do should be able to get it on
> >demand.
> >
> >> ...thanks for any clarification....dac
> >
> >I believe the above is accurate.  If not, I _know_ I will
> >hear about it.
>
> I'm still waiting for DJ (our resident GPL expert) to weigh
> in here, but I believe that your interpretation is pretty much
> spot on.  You accurately interpreted what I was saying and
> reworded what I said to make it clearer.  Thanks.

You're quite welcome.  I _did_ read the GPL, and what I wrote reflects my
understanding of it.  It's nice to know I haven't lost _all_ ability to
comprehend what I read.

> I try to mention the Cygwin and the GPL fairly frequently
> because people have professed surprise about it in the past.
> Usually in this context, I also point out that Red Hat does
> retain the copyright on Cygwin and we do occasionally sell
> proprietary-use versions of it to people who are scared of
> the GPL.  These licenses are part of what keeps the project
> going, paradoxically enough.

I ignored some of the technicalities, like Red Hat's copyright, as
irrelevant to the main point and potentially confusing.  There _are_
technical differences between the various open source liscense terms that
can bite you, like the issues discussed here in the past that would prevent
some other open source packages from becoming part of the Cygwin
distribution per se.  (F'rinstance, I'd _love_ to see real ksh93 for Cygwin,
but I suspect AT&T Research's open source terms are far apart enough from
the GPL that you couldn't package a Cygwin port of it _with_ Cygwin.)

Speaking of which, IIRC, you get a message from the listbot when you
subscribe to this list.  Would it make sense to add a couple of paragraphs
to that message?  One would specify that the list is for Cygwin under
Windows discussion, and it's _not_ the right place to ask general Unix/Linux
questions.  The second would include some helpful URLs, for Cygwin and *nix
newbies to look for more information, before asking questions here.

It might cut down on some of the less topical questions.

>cgf

_________________________
Dennis McCunney
mccunney@bellatlantic.net


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple