Bundling cygrunsrv with stand-alone projects

Bundling cygrunsrv with stand-alone projects

[Soeren Nils Kuklau]

Hi,

we're working on a cross-platform server daemon which on Windows gets 
compiled through Cygwin. To make installation convenient for Windows 
users, we would like to bundle `cygwin1.dll' and the necessary files for 
`cygrunsrv' with our Windows port. Before we try and implement that on 
our side, however, we would like to know about the licensing implications.

The project is `non-commercial' (as in 1) our primary purpose isn't to 
make big bucks off it and 2) it is available for download at no cost) 
and `open-source' (as in there's an issue tracker, and we will probably 
allow anonymous SVN access to the source as the project becomes more 
stable), but not under a GPL-compatible license.

I also found rather little documentation on `cygrunsrv'. The bundled 
README file comprehensively lists possible arguments, but appears to 
assume that the daemon to be run is inside the Cygwin root directory 
(such as C:\Cygwin), whereas we believe it would make more sense to 
distribute our package for installation inside Windows' Program Files 
folder. Does `cygrunsrv' understand Windows-like paths, or can we rely 
on a `/cygdrive/c/Program\ Files/'-like path structure?

Thanks in advance for pointers,
-- 
Soeren 'Chucker' Kuklau

Re: Bundling cygrunsrv with stand-alone projects

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Oct 14 10:16, Soeren Nils Kuklau wrote:
> we're working on a cross-platform server daemon which on Windows gets 
> compiled through Cygwin. To make installation convenient for Windows 
> users, we would like to bundle `cygwin1.dll' and the necessary files for 
> `cygrunsrv' with our Windows port. Before we try and implement that on 

Why?  You know that you create a couple of problems for users who already
have installed Cygwin on their machines?  But that's a technical problem
so I ask you to discuss this on the base mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com.
Thanks.

> our side, however, we would like to know about the licensing implications.
> 
> The project is `non-commercial' (as in 1) our primary purpose isn't to 
> make big bucks off it and 2) it is available for download at no cost) 
> and `open-source' (as in there's an issue tracker, and we will probably 
> allow anonymous SVN access to the source as the project becomes more 
> stable), but not under a GPL-compatible license.

The secret word is "GPL".  It doesn't matter if you want to make money
with it as long as you release your source code under an Open-Source
compliant license according to the following definition:

  http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html

If your software doesn't meet these criterias, you will have to buy
a buy-out license from Red Hat, see http://cygwin.com/licensing.html

Please note that when you're distributing binary versions of Cygwin and
cygrunsrv, you also have to provide the sources from which the Cygwin
and cygrunsrv versions have been built to comply with the GPL.  You must
not rely on Red Hat keeping the sources of these versions for you.

> I also found rather little documentation on `cygrunsrv'. The bundled 
> README file comprehensively lists possible arguments, but appears to 
> assume that the daemon to be run is inside the Cygwin root directory 
> (such as C:\Cygwin), whereas we believe it would make more sense to 
> distribute our package for installation inside Windows' Program Files 
> folder. Does `cygrunsrv' understand Windows-like paths, or can we rely 
> on a `/cygdrive/c/Program\ Files/'-like path structure?

This is a non-licensing related question again, please ask this on
cygwin@cygwin.com.  Thanks.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: Bundling cygrunsrv with stand-alone projects

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Oct 14 10:16, Soeren Nils Kuklau wrote:
> > we're working on a cross-platform server daemon which on Windows gets
> > compiled through Cygwin. To make installation convenient for Windows
> > users, we would like to bundle `cygwin1.dll' and the necessary files for
> > `cygrunsrv' with our Windows port. Before we try and implement that on
>
> Why?  You know that you create a couple of problems for users who already
> have installed Cygwin on their machines?
> [snip]
>
> > our side, however, we would like to know about the licensing implications.
> >
> > The project is `non-commercial' (as in 1) our primary purpose isn't to
> > make big bucks off it and 2) it is available for download at no cost)
> > and `open-source' (as in there's an issue tracker, and we will probably
> > allow anonymous SVN access to the source as the project becomes more
> > stable), but not under a GPL-compatible license.
>
> The secret word is "GPL".  It doesn't matter if you want to make money
> with it as long as you release your source code under an Open-Source
> compliant license according to the following definition:
>
>   http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html
>
> If your software doesn't meet these criterias, you will have to buy
> a buy-out license from Red Hat, see http://cygwin.com/licensing.html

Hmm, I may be opening a can of worms here, but doesn't GPL allow bundling
GPL'd binaries with other binaries that aren't GPL-compatible (or even
open-sourced) as long as they aren't linked together?  At least, that's
what the "mere aggregation" clause covers -- see
<http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine>
(<http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>) and
<http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem>.

> Please note that when you're distributing binary versions of Cygwin and
> cygrunsrv, you also have to provide the sources from which the Cygwin
> and cygrunsrv versions have been built to comply with the GPL.  You must
> not rely on Red Hat keeping the sources of these versions for you.

Yes.  The GPL FAQ is a good read in any case -- perhaps the first message
on this list should've pointed people to it...
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing
whatever you think is worth doing."  -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw

Re: Bundling cygrunsrv with stand-alone projects

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:15:54PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14 10:16, Soeren Nils Kuklau wrote:
>> > we're working on a cross-platform server daemon which on Windows gets
>> > compiled through Cygwin. To make installation convenient for Windows
>> > users, we would like to bundle `cygwin1.dll' and the necessary files for
>> > `cygrunsrv' with our Windows port. Before we try and implement that on
>>
>> Why?  You know that you create a couple of problems for users who already
>> have installed Cygwin on their machines?
>> [snip]
>>
>> > our side, however, we would like to know about the licensing implications.
>> >
>> > The project is `non-commercial' (as in 1) our primary purpose isn't to
>> > make big bucks off it and 2) it is available for download at no cost)
>> > and `open-source' (as in there's an issue tracker, and we will probably
>> > allow anonymous SVN access to the source as the project becomes more
>> > stable), but not under a GPL-compatible license.
>>
>> The secret word is "GPL".  It doesn't matter if you want to make money
>> with it as long as you release your source code under an Open-Source
>> compliant license according to the following definition:
>>
>>   http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html
>>
>> If your software doesn't meet these criterias, you will have to buy
>> a buy-out license from Red Hat, see http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>
>Hmm, I may be opening a can of worms here, but doesn't GPL allow bundling
>GPL'd binaries with other binaries that aren't GPL-compatible (or even
>open-sourced) as long as they aren't linked together?  At least, that's
>what the "mere aggregation" clause covers -- see
><http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine>
>(<http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>) and
><http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem>.

No one said you couldn't distribute your own non-GPLed code any way that
you see fit.

If you are distributing cygserver or the cygwin DLL or binaries which link
to the cygwin DLL, then you have to adhere to the GPL.  That means that
you must include the sources of cygserver, the cygwin DLL, and the binary
which you linked using the cygwin DLL.

>> Please note that when you're distributing binary versions of Cygwin and
>> cygrunsrv, you also have to provide the sources from which the Cygwin
>> and cygrunsrv versions have been built to comply with the GPL.  You must
>> not rely on Red Hat keeping the sources of these versions for you.
>
>Yes.  The GPL FAQ is a good read in any case -- perhaps the first message
>on this list should've pointed people to it...

New people are joining all of the time.  Sending one message to the list
is not going to solve anything.

I've modified the lists.html page to make it clear that the GPL FAQ and
cygwin licensing pages are mandatory reading for this list.

Re: Bundling cygrunsrv with stand-alone projects

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:15:54PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14 10:16, Soeren Nils Kuklau wrote:
>> > we're working on a cross-platform server daemon which on Windows gets
>> > compiled through Cygwin. To make installation convenient for Windows
>> > users, we would like to bundle `cygwin1.dll' and the necessary files for
>> > `cygrunsrv' with our Windows port. Before we try and implement that on
>>
>> Why?  You know that you create a couple of problems for users who already
>> have installed Cygwin on their machines?
>> [snip]
>>
>> > our side, however, we would like to know about the licensing implications.
>> >
>> > The project is `non-commercial' (as in 1) our primary purpose isn't to
>> > make big bucks off it and 2) it is available for download at no cost)
>> > and `open-source' (as in there's an issue tracker, and we will probably
>> > allow anonymous SVN access to the source as the project becomes more
>> > stable), but not under a GPL-compatible license.
>>
>> The secret word is "GPL".  It doesn't matter if you want to make money
>> with it as long as you release your source code under an Open-Source
>> compliant license according to the following definition:
>>
>>   http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html
>>
>> If your software doesn't meet these criterias, you will have to buy
>> a buy-out license from Red Hat, see http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>
>Hmm, I may be opening a can of worms here, but doesn't GPL allow bundling
>GPL'd binaries with other binaries that aren't GPL-compatible (or even
>open-sourced) as long as they aren't linked together?  At least, that's
>what the "mere aggregation" clause covers -- see
><http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine>
>(<http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>) and
><http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem>.

No one said you couldn't distribute your own non-GPLed code any way that
you see fit.

If you are distributing cygserver or the cygwin DLL or binaries which link
to the cygwin DLL, then you have to adhere to the GPL.  That means that
you must include the sources of cygserver, the cygwin DLL, and the binary
which you linked using the cygwin DLL.

>> Please note that when you're distributing binary versions of Cygwin and
>> cygrunsrv, you also have to provide the sources from which the Cygwin
>> and cygrunsrv versions have been built to comply with the GPL.  You must
>> not rely on Red Hat keeping the sources of these versions for you.
>
>Yes.  The GPL FAQ is a good read in any case -- perhaps the first message
>on this list should've pointed people to it...

New people are joining all of the time.  Sending one message to the list
is not going to solve anything.

I've modified the lists.html page to make it clear that the GPL FAQ and
cygwin licensing pages are mandatory reading for this list.