Licensing/Installer Questions

Licensing/Installer Questions

[Michael Banks]

Hello,

Our company has released a commercial product for the medical industry called SpongePACS ( http://www.spongepacs.com ). It was developed in a database program called FileMaker Pro, which has the ability to access the command line. In fact, SpongePACS relies heavily on utilities like grep and find, which come with a standard installation of Mac OS X.

Since we want to also target the larger Windows user base, we need to find Windows equivalents, and Cygwin has worked fine in our testing, but I have a couple of questions:

1) Licensing. I've read the licensing pages, but I'm still confused. We're not porting a Unix/Linux application to Windows. All we need are a dozen or so packages (mainly from the Base category, plus a few others). Do we still need to purchase a special Cygwin license from Red Hat?

2) Installer. As I mentioned before, SpongePACS is a product for the medical industry. Believe it or not, many doctors' offices do *not* have an Internet connection, so can we bundle a Cygwin installer that just has the needed packages, and include this installer on a CD with our product?

We need some guidance on how to proceed.

--
Regards,

Sean Mills
Grantwood Technology, LLC
7255 Old Oak Blvd C405
Middleburg Heights OH 44130
Phone: 440-816-4663
Fax: 440-816-5398

Re: Licensing/Installer Questions

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mar  1 02:46, Michael Banks wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Our company has released a commercial product for the medical industry
> called SpongePACS ( http://www.spongepacs.com ). It was developed in a
> database program called FileMaker Pro, which has the ability to access
> the command line. In fact, SpongePACS relies heavily on utilities like
> grep and find, which come with a standard installation of Mac OS X.
> 
> Since we want to also target the larger Windows user base, we need to
> find Windows equivalents, and Cygwin has worked fine in our testing,
> but I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Licensing. I've read the licensing pages, but I'm still confused.
> We're not porting a Unix/Linux application to Windows. All we need are
> a dozen or so packages (mainly from the Base category, plus a few
> others). Do we still need to purchase a special Cygwin license from
> Red Hat?


The Cygwin buy-out license covers the case in which a proprietary
application is linked against Cygwin and should stay proprietary.  In
this case you have to purchase the license.

If your closed-source applications are not linked against Cygwin, or if
you decide to convert the license of your product to a blessed open-
source license, then you don't have to purchase the Cygwin buy-out
license.

If Cygwin is only used for open-source tools which are packed with
your applications, then that's fine.  But see below.

> 2) Installer. As I mentioned before, SpongePACS is a product for the
> medical industry. Believe it or not, many doctors' offices do *not*
> have an Internet connection, so can we bundle a Cygwin installer that
> just has the needed packages, and include this installer on a CD with
> our product?

Whatever you do, please keep in mind that you have to provide the full
sources of Cygwin and all accompaning open-source tools.  If you fail to
give your customers the source codes, you're infringing the license.


HTH,
Corinna

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

Re: Licensing/Installer Questions

[Michael Banks]

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.

2) Installer. We could use some specifics on how to comply with the cygwin lincensing.

I think ideally our product would have a single installer that includes our closed-source product, whatever open-source cygwin tools our product relies on, and the full sources of cygwin. How exactly do we include the proper cygwin files? If we do a sample cygwin install on a PC, does the cygwin folder conatin everything we need (open-source tools + cygwin source), or is it more complicated than that?

Regards,
Sean

On Wednesday, March 01, 2006, at 05:02AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:

>On Mar  1 02:46, Michael Banks wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Our company has released a commercial product for the medical industry
>> called SpongePACS ( http://www.spongepacs.com ). It was developed in a
>> database program called FileMaker Pro, which has the ability to access
>> the command line. In fact, SpongePACS relies heavily on utilities like
>> grep and find, which come with a standard installation of Mac OS X.
>> 
>> Since we want to also target the larger Windows user base, we need to
>> find Windows equivalents, and Cygwin has worked fine in our testing,
>> but I have a couple of questions:
>> 
>> 1) Licensing. I've read the licensing pages, but I'm still confused.
>> We're not porting a Unix/Linux application to Windows. All we need are
>> a dozen or so packages (mainly from the Base category, plus a few
>> others). Do we still need to purchase a special Cygwin license from
>> Red Hat?
>
>
>The Cygwin buy-out license covers the case in which a proprietary
>application is linked against Cygwin and should stay proprietary.  In
>this case you have to purchase the license.
>
>If your closed-source applications are not linked against Cygwin, or if
>you decide to convert the license of your product to a blessed open-
>source license, then you don't have to purchase the Cygwin buy-out
>license.
>
>If Cygwin is only used for open-source tools which are packed with
>your applications, then that's fine.  But see below.
>
>> 2) Installer. As I mentioned before, SpongePACS is a product for the
>> medical industry. Believe it or not, many doctors' offices do *not*
>> have an Internet connection, so can we bundle a Cygwin installer that
>> just has the needed packages, and include this installer on a CD with
>> our product?
>
>Whatever you do, please keep in mind that you have to provide the full
>sources of Cygwin and all accompaning open-source tools.  If you fail to
>give your customers the source codes, you're infringing the license.
>
>
>HTH,
>Corinna
>
>-- 
>Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
>Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>Red Hat
>
>

Re: Licensing/Installer Questions

[Corinna Vinschen]

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 <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>.

> On Wednesday, March 01, 2006, at 05:02AM, Corinna Vinschen <XXXXXXX-XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX> wrote:
> [...]


Corinna

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

Re: Licensing/Installer Questions

[Michael Banks]

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 <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> 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 <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>.
>
>> On Wednesday, March 01, 2006, at 05:02AM, Corinna Vinschen <XXXXXXX-XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX> wrote:
>> [...]
>
>
>Corinna
>
>-- 
>Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
>Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>Red Hat
>
>

Re: Licensing/Installer Questions

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mar  3 07:01, Michael Banks wrote:
> 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."

The basic GPL rules are

- The recipient has the right to get the sources the same way as the
  binaries.  If you provide a binary CD, put the sources onto the same
  CD or provide an extra source CD.  If you provide the binaries by ftp
  or http, provide the sources under the same URL as the binaries.  This
  is according to GPL section 3a.  It's the way Cygwin is provided by us.

- If you don't provide the sources, you must provide a *written* offer,
  valid for at least three years, to provide the source code on request.
  This is according to GPL section 3b.

Whatever, please note you have to provide the *exact* sources of the
tools provided to the customer.  If you send the binary foo, version 1.3
and the customer wants the sources three years later, you must provide
the source of foo-1.3.  You must not provide the source for version
foo-2.7, just because that's the most recent version of the project foo
at the time of the request.  You are required to keep the sources of the
exact version you provided.  I hope that's clear.

However, I can only really suggest to read the GPL closely and to
consult a layer who is specialised in licensing issues.  Whatever I tell
you, I'm not a lawyer.  As another measurement, I would ask you to
contact Red Hat for any more special questions.  For your convenience I
have attached the important links for you:


  GPL:     http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
  GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
  Red Hat: http://www.redhat.com/software/cygwin/


Corinna

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

RE: Licensing/Installer Questions

[Dave Korn]

On 03 March 2006 12:01, Michael Banks wrote:

> 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."      

  GPL clause 3 applies to your desire to redistribute binaries of the GPL'd
cygwin tools.  It says:-

----------------------------
3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and
2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and
2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for
noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code
or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) 

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source
code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and
so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to
copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code,
even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the
object code. 
=======================================================================

  Distributing the sources by download as well as distributing the binaries by
download where they're both available from side-by-side download links would
count as "accompanying" under clause a), so that would be OK.  In that case,
the last clause says that as long as the sources are available from the same
server, it doesn't matter if they're in a separate tarball/zipfile/whatever.

  However, as to saying "Contact us at xxx@yyy", I'm not quite so sure.  You
would be trying to comply with clause b) there, but I don't know if that
counts as a "written" offer, and I don't know if it would comply with the need
for transferability of the written offer.  Further, the written offer entitles
the holder/recipient of the offer to a copy of the sources "on a medium"; that
means you can't offer an email or ftp download to someone to satisfy the offer
EVEN IF the original binary was downloaded, you are obliged to physically mail
them a CD-ROM or whatever.  It would really be far simpler to leave the
sources on the same server along with the binaries.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: Licensing/Installer Questions

[Dave Korn]

On 03 March 2006 12:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Mar  3 07:01, Michael Banks wrote:
>> 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."      
> 
> The basic GPL rules are

  In case you choose to skip or skim my rather more verbose mail, it basically
says the same as Corinna has written here, but I think there's one extra
point:

> - If you don't provide the sources, you must provide a *written* offer,
>   valid for at least three years, to provide the source code on request.
>   This is according to GPL section 3b.

  I think the GPL is generally read as implying that those sources must be
provided on a physical medium.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....