This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: compiled files under GPL?
- From: "Matthew O. Persico" <persicom at acedsl dot com>
- To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>, Brian Ford <ford at vss dot fsi dot com>
- Cc: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:11:18 -0400
- Subject: Re: compiled files under GPL?
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>?On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>
>>>?Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's
>>>?gcc/g++ is
>>>?automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some
>>>?violating...
>>>?sorry.
>>
>>?This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. ?Unless
>>?you have
>>?purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
>
>?There are some exceptions, IIRC. ?For more information, see
>?<http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136>?or consult a lawyer.
>?Igor
I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg your indulgence. From the link above:
"To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out any binaries, you must also make the source available. "
Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source exposed, etc.
BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies.
Is that a reasonable interpretation?
--
Matthew O. Persico
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/