Re: Cygwin now licensed under GPLv3+

Re: Cygwin now licensed under GPLv3+

[Luke Kendall]

[I'm reposting this as it's been 5 weeks since I posted it, and have 
just had the mail returned to me saying that the moderator hasn't acted 
on it, so I should repost it if I feel that is an error.]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 04:04:25PM +1000, Luke Kendall wrote:
>   
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 01:37:52PM +1000, Luke Kendall wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Cygwin friends and users,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to announce that, effective immediately, Red Hat has
>>>>> relicensed Cygwin from "GNU Public License version 2" (GPLv2) to
>>>>> "GNU Public License version 3 or later" (GPLv3+).
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> What does that mean in terms of Cygwin components?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Corinna referenced a page:
>>>
>>> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>>>
>>> which barely changed except to mention GPLv3.  This many-month old email
>>> was just meant to announce that the Cygwin DLL and associated utilities
>>> were moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
>>>       
>> Yes.
>>     
>
> Again, there is nothing new here beyond 's/GPLv2/GPLv3'.
>
>   
>>>> Each component normally has its own license, so does the above
>>>> statement mean that things like the Cygwin DLL and other Cygwin-only
>>>> components are under GPLv3?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Red Hat did not suddenly assume the extralegal power to change the
>>> licensing of other packages.
>>>       
>> Naturally. 
>>     
>
> And yet you are asking if somehow Red Hat had somehow assumed the
> authority to change the licensing of packages that it doesn't own.  It
> did not.
>
>   

I didn't think I *was* asking that, and in fact I honestly can't see how 
what I asked could be interpreted that way, but obviously I asked my 
question so poorly that it could be interpreted that way.  I'm sorry.

Maybe what's causing the confusion is that we're talking about something 
that's blindingly obvious to you, but not obvious to people who aren't 
as deeply involved with Cygwin as you are (e.g.: me)?

I wonder if perhaps you have a very precise understanding of what is 
meant by "cygwin" in `Red Hat has relicensed Cygwin from "GNU Public 
License version 2" (GPLv2) to"GNU Public License version 3 or later" 
(GPLv3+)', whereas my (probably wrong) interpretation of "cygwin" is 
"the stuff you can install by Cygwin's setup.exe".

(Anyway, that's a very secondary topic.  My real question is below.)

>> And there are over 1,800 packages in Cygwin.  So I imagine that the 
>> change to the GPLv3+ has no effect on any of them.
>>     
>
> It affects the Cygwin package which contains the DLL and other Cygwin
> utilities found in the winsup directory.
>
>   

Sorry if I'm being thick - I'm genuinely trying to understand what you 
mean.  By the "Cygwin package", I guess you *don't* mean "the package 
described in the `@ cygwin' section in setup.ini", do you?

I say that because I looked in my old Cygwin install ("find c:/ d:/ 
-type d -name winsup -print") for a winsup directory but couldn't find 
it, and then fetched the latest cygwin-1.7.9-1.tar.bz2 and looked inside 
that for a winsup directory but again couldn't find a directory called 
anything like "winsup".

So because I couldn't find it, I'm sorry to say I'm now unsure what you 
mean by either "the Cygwin package" or  "the winsup directory".

Could you explain a little more?  I'm sorry if I'm being difficult.

Regards,

luke

> cgf
>   

Re: Cygwin now licensed under GPLv3+

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Oct 20 15:00, Luke Kendall wrote:
> I wonder if perhaps you have a very precise understanding of what is
> meant by "cygwin" in `Red Hat has relicensed Cygwin from "GNU Public
> License version 2" (GPLv2) to"GNU Public License version 3 or later"
> (GPLv3+)', whereas my (probably wrong) interpretation of "cygwin" is
> "the stuff you can install by Cygwin's setup.exe".

"cygwin" is basically the "cygwin" package, or better, the code in the
source package which comes under the "winsup/cygserver", "winsup/cygwin",
"winsup/lsaauth", and "winsup/utils" directory, except for the source
files which are explicitely given another license (mostly BSD).

The files installed from the "cygwin" binary package are covered by this.

> I say that because I looked in my old Cygwin install ("find c:/ d:/
> -type d -name winsup -print") for a winsup directory but couldn't
> find it, and then fetched the latest cygwin-1.7.9-1.tar.bz2 and
> looked inside that for a winsup directory but again couldn't find a
> directory called anything like "winsup".

See the source package.


Corinna

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

Re: Cygwin now licensed under GPLv3+

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 04:04:25PM +1000, Luke Kendall wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 01:37:52PM +1000, Luke Kendall wrote:
>>   
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Hi Cygwin friends and users,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to announce that, effective immediately, Red Hat has
>>>> relicensed Cygwin from "GNU Public License version 2" (GPLv2) to
>>>> "GNU Public License version 3 or later" (GPLv3+).
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> What does that mean in terms of Cygwin components?
>>>     
>>
>> Corinna referenced a page:
>>
>> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>>
>> which barely changed except to mention GPLv3.  This many-month old email
>> was just meant to announce that the Cygwin DLL and associated utilities
>> were moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
>
>Yes.

Again, there is nothing new here beyond 's/GPLv2/GPLv3'.

>>> Each component normally has its own license, so does the above
>>> statement mean that things like the Cygwin DLL and other Cygwin-only
>>> components are under GPLv3?
>>>     
>>
>> Red Hat did not suddenly assume the extralegal power to change the
>> licensing of other packages.
>
>Naturally. 

And yet you are asking if somehow Red Hat had somehow assumed the
authority to change the licensing of packages that it doesn't own.  It
did not.

>And there are over 1,800 packages in Cygwin.  So I imagine that the 
>change to the GPLv3+ has no effect on any of them.

It affects the Cygwin package which contains the DLL and other Cygwin
utilities found in the winsup directory.

cgf

Re: Cygwin now licensed under GPLv3+

[Luke Kendall]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 01:37:52PM +1000, Luke Kendall wrote:
>   
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Cygwin friends and users,
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm happy to announce that, effective immediately, Red Hat has
>>> relicensed Cygwin from "GNU Public License version 2" (GPLv2) to
>>> "GNU Public License version 3 or later" (GPLv3+).
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> What does that mean in terms of Cygwin components?
>>     
>
> Corinna referenced a page:
>
> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>
> which barely changed except to mention GPLv3.  This many-month old email
> was just meant to announce that the Cygwin DLL and associated utilities
> were moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
>
>   

Yes.

>> Each component normally has its own license, so does the above
>> statement mean that things like the Cygwin DLL and other Cygwin-only
>> components are under GPLv3?
>>     
>
> Red Hat did not suddenly assume the extralegal power to change the
> licensing of other packages.
>
>   

Naturally. 

And there are over 1,800 packages in Cygwin.  So I imagine that the 
change to the GPLv3+ has no effect on any of them.

>> Is there an explicit list or a precise description of what parts of 
>> Cygwin are covered by GPLv3?
>>     
>
> You mean like the very web page that you quoted below?
>
>   
>>> The Open Source Licensing Exception persists, as well as the
>>> availability of the Cygwin Alternative License, as described on
>>> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>>>       

I couldn't find the information on that page.  To me (perhaps I'm 
misreading it?), I could only find two precise pieces of information:

1) programs linked with libcygwin.a can still use the Red Hat exception 
license for it (provided they don't distribute libcygwin.a itself, too)
2) The Cygwin DLL is under GPLv3+

I could see no explicit list, nor any precise description of what parts 
of Cygwin are covered by GPLv3.

Are you saying that the list only contains two items, libcygwin.a and 
the Cygwin DLL?
I thought there might be some others, like some special Cygwin-only 
parts of X11.

I apologise for asking the question so many months after the announcement.

Regards,

luke

Re: Cygwin now licensed under GPLv3+

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 01:37:52PM +1000, Luke Kendall wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Hi Cygwin friends and users,
>>
>>
>> I'm happy to announce that, effective immediately, Red Hat has
>> relicensed Cygwin from "GNU Public License version 2" (GPLv2) to
>> "GNU Public License version 3 or later" (GPLv3+).
>>
>>   
>
>What does that mean in terms of Cygwin components?

Corinna referenced a page:

http://cygwin.com/licensing.html

which barely changed except to mention GPLv3.  This many-month old email
was just meant to announce that the Cygwin DLL and associated utilities
were moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3.

>Each component normally has its own license, so does the above
>statement mean that things like the Cygwin DLL and other Cygwin-only
>components are under GPLv3?

Red Hat did not suddenly assume the extralegal power to change the
licensing of other packages.

>Is there an explicit list or a precise description of what parts of 
>Cygwin are covered by GPLv3?

You mean like the very web page that you quoted below?

>> The Open Source Licensing Exception persists, as well as the
>> availability of the Cygwin Alternative License, as described on
>> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html

Re: Cygwin now licensed under GPLv3+

[Luke Kendall]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Cygwin friends and users,
>
>
> I'm happy to announce that, effective immediately, Red Hat has
> relicensed Cygwin from "GNU Public License version 2" (GPLv2) to
> "GNU Public License version 3 or later" (GPLv3+).
>
>   

What does that mean in terms of Cygwin components?  Each component 
normally has its own license, so does the above statement mean that 
things like the Cygwin DLL and other Cygwin-only components are under GPLv3?

Is there an explicit list or a precise description of what parts of 
Cygwin are covered by GPLv3?

Regards,

luke

> The Open Source Licensing Exception persists, as well as the
> availability of the Cygwin Alternative License, as described on
> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>
> This shouldn't affect a lot of you, but if you're concerned that this
> change in the Cygwin license might affect you and your projects, see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ in the first place.  You can also ask
> questions on the cygwin or cygwin-licensing mailing list, but be aware
> that we can't give valid legal advice.  It's always better to ask
> a lawyer who's specialized in licensing questions.
>
>
> Have fun,
> Corinna
>
>
> *** CYGWIN-ANNOUNCE UNSUBSCRIBE INFO ***
>
> If you want to unsubscribe from the cygwin-announce mailing list, look
> at the "List-Unsubscribe: " tag in the email header of this message.
> Send email to the address specified there. It will be in the format:
>
> cygwin-announce-unsubscribe-you=yourdomain.com@cygwin.com
>
> If you need more information on unsubscribing, start reading here:
>
> http://sourceware.org/lists.html#unsubscribe-simple
>
> Please read *all* of the information on unsubscribing that is available
> starting at this URL.
>
>
>