From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16303 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2007 04:12:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 16283 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2007 04:12:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from dessent.net (HELO dessent.net) (69.60.119.225) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:12:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=dessent.net) by dessent.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I4qnX-0001Fk-3x; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:12:31 +0000 Message-ID: <468729AE.DFBAD955@dessent.net> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:12:00 -0000 From: Brian Dessent Reply-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Blake CC: cygwin-apps , cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: GPLv3 References: <46872417.5010406@byu.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 Eric Blake wrote: > tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that > requires GPLv3 or later. Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring > exactly GPLv2. According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq, > it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program to link against a GPLv2-only library. > So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin > forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the > fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll > constitutes a license violation? Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin side. I don't know about the other direction though. Brian