Re: GPLv3

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>]

On Jul  2 15:09, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> 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?

Read http://cygwin.com/licensing.html again:

  See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html for the
  precise Open Source Definition referenced above.

Even if the license is not approved, the above definition sets the rules
against which the license is measured.

> Could Red Hat's lawyers take another look at the language and provide
> their opinion on this?

Been there, done that.  Regardless of the exact wording, somebody
who wants to ignore the licensing issue will do anyway.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat