From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17566 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2006 12:17:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 7181 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2006 12:01:30 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HOT_NASTY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <14083028.1141387286807.JavaMail.chartpacs@mac.com> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:17:00 -0000 From: Michael Banks To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Licensing/Installer Questions in-reply-to: <20060301141544.GS3184@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit references: <3816256.1141199172470.JavaMail.chartpacs@mac.com> <20060301095501.GK3184@calimero.vinschen.de> <9149702.1141221528157.JavaMail.chartpacs@mac.com> <20060301141544.GS3184@calimero.vinschen.de> X-Originating-IP: 65.43.145.213/instID=259 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-licensing-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-licensing-owner@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 If we have a link on our website to download our product, which contains a few open-source cygwin tools, then is it OK to have a separate link to download the sources of those tools, just to try and save some bandwidth? Would it be OK to have text on the website like "Our product uses a number of open-source tools. To comply with the licesing for these tools, we are required to provide the source code for them. The source code is available upon request, so please contact us at yyy@zzz.com if interested." -- Regards, Sean Mills Grantwood Technology, LLC 7255 Old Oak Blvd C405 Middleburg Heights OH 44130 Phone: 440-816-4663 Fax: 440-816-5398 On Wednesday, March 01, 2006, at 09:19AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Mar 1 08:58, Michael Banks wrote: >> Hello Corinna, >> >> Thank you for the prompt reply. I'm still a little confused. >> >> 1) Licensing. Could you please explain what "linking against Cygwin" means? I'm guessing that is for trying to port a Unix application to Windows? We're just wanting to use a few of the open-source tools (grep, find, ghostscript, etc.), so I'm guessing we do *not* need to purchase a special license, but we just want to be sure. > >Linking in the compiler/linker/runtime-loader sense. Linking against >Cygwin means building an application which relies on functions provided >by the Cygwin library. Roughly, if you application works even if Cygwin >is not present, you're off the hook. If your application refuses to >start without Cygwin, you're not. > >> 2) Installer. We could use some specifics on how to comply with the cygwin lincensing. > >The installer has nothing to do with licensing. All tools, which >are open-sourced should be accompanied with their respective sources. >The exact style (zip file, tar archive, CD installer, ...) has nothing >to do with the licensing, except that a user should get the sources >the same way as they get the binaries. > >As for your specific installer packaging questions, they don't belong to >cygwin-licensing. Please ask this sort of question on the normal cygwin >mailing list . > >> On Wednesday, March 01, 2006, at 05:02AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> [...] > > >Corinna > >-- >Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to >Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com >Red Hat > >