From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32697 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2006 13:01:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 25722 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2006 12:40:07 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:01:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Licensing/Installer Questions Message-ID: <20060303124001.GU3184@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com References: <3816256.1141199172470.JavaMail.chartpacs@mac.com> <20060301095501.GK3184@calimero.vinschen.de> <9149702.1141221528157.JavaMail.chartpacs@mac.com> <20060301141544.GS3184@calimero.vinschen.de> <14083028.1141387286807.JavaMail.chartpacs@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14083028.1141387286807.JavaMail.chartpacs@mac.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i 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/msg00012.txt.bz2 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