From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21480 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2007 07:29:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 16283 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2007 04:12:36 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <468729AE.DFBAD955@dessent.net> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:29:00 -0000 From: Brian Dessent Reply-To: cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Organization: My own little world... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Blake CC: cygwin-apps , cygwin-licensing@cygwin.com Subject: Re: GPLv3 References: <46872417.5010406@byu.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 Eric Blake wrote: > tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that > requires GPLv3 or later. Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring > exactly GPLv2. According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq, > it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program to link against a GPLv2-only library. > So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin > forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the > fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll > constitutes a license violation? Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin side. I don't know about the other direction though. Brian