From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24235 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2012 09:39:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 6466 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2012 09:26:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:39:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Bug in Cygwin Windows 8 group permissions Message-ID: <20121205092629.GA24805@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com References: <50BE8526.3030602@cygwin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-licensing-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-licensing-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-q4/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On Dec 4 18:39, Chaz Littlejohn wrote: > > On 12/4/2012 4:34 PM, Chaz Littlejohn wrote: > > IANAL but I believe there are 2 issues here: > > > > 1. Whether your use of Cygwin means your program also needs to fall under > > the GPL > > > > 2. Distribution of the Cygwin DLL and its utilities > > > > If what you describe above about your usage of Cygwin is correct, then I > > believe (1) is not an issue for you. However, (2) still applies since you > > cannot distribute GPL'd software without providing the source as well. > > I'm not sure if the two are separate. Assuming the program > communicates with cygwin utilities only via command line arguments and > they're not sharing complex data structures, i believe it would be > considered "aggregate" rather than an "modified". From the GPL FAQ > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation): > > "An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed > together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to > create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the > other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is > that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits > users from exercising rights that each program's individual license > would grant them." What you're missing is the fact that you're still required to adhere to the licensing of the individual packages, even if your own prorietary stuff doesn't link aginst the OSS code. That means, for the Cygwin DLL, being under GPLv3+, you have to provide the sources of the package as well, using the exact version you provide in binary form. Not many people take their right to fetch the sources as well, but they *have* a right to it, at least as far as the GPL goes. The most simple way to accomplish this is to add a sources download URL where you provide the source packages of all the OSS packages you use. It's not *that* much work. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat