Combining Cygwin with non-free portability libraries

Combining Cygwin with non-free portability libraries

[Igor Pechtchanski]

Incidentally, while perusing the GPL FAQ, I stumbled upon
<http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc>.  There seem to be
several cases of Cygwin packages that may do something similar (in fact,
Cygwin itself technically does that :-D).  Are there implications?
Should Cygwin have a clause in the licensing explicitly allowing some
particular instances of this, just to make sure things work smoothly?
	Igor
P.S. Any lawyers reading this list? ;-)
-- 
				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: Combining cygwin with non-free portability libraries

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:18:47PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>Incidentally, while perusing the GPL FAQ, I stumbled upon
><http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc>.  There seem to be
>several cases of Cygwin packages that may do something similar (in fact,
>Cygwin itself technically does that :-D).  Are there implications?

If there are Cygwin packages which are bundling libraries that do not
include source then they shouldn't be in the distribution.

What packages are you referring to?  I'll pull them immediately.

Re: Combining cygwin with non-free portability libraries

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:18:47PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >Incidentally, while perusing the GPL FAQ, I stumbled upon
> ><http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc>.  There seem to be
> >several cases of Cygwin packages that may do something similar (in fact,
> >Cygwin itself technically does that :-D).  Are there implications?
>
> If there are Cygwin packages which are bundling libraries that do not
> include source then they shouldn't be in the distribution.

Not bundling.  Linking.  The libraries *are* obtained separately.

> What packages are you referring to?  I'll pull them immediately.

Well, "cygwin", for one.  It links with Windows system DLLs, which are
most definitely proprietary.  I wasn't trying to point to a particular
package, this was indeed a licensing question -- in what way does the
above FAQ entry apply to Cygwin packages in general?
	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: Combining cygwin with non-free portability libraries

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:12:26PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>What packages are you referring to?  I'll pull them immediately.
>
>Well, "cygwin", for one.  It links with Windows system DLLs, which are
>most definitely proprietary.  I wasn't trying to point to a particular
>package, this was indeed a licensing question -- in what way does the
>above FAQ entry apply to Cygwin packages in general?

This is basic GPL stuff.  There is no violation of the package is using
system libraries.  Otherwise you couldn't use GPLed packages on HP/UX,
Solaris, Tru64, etc.

"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."

Re: Combining cygwin with non-free portability libraries

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:12:26PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >>What packages are you referring to?  I'll pull them immediately.
> >
> >Well, "cygwin", for one.  It links with Windows system DLLs, which are
> >most definitely proprietary.  I wasn't trying to point to a particular
> >package, this was indeed a licensing question -- in what way does the
> >above FAQ entry apply to Cygwin packages in general?
>
> This is basic GPL stuff.  There is no violation of the package is using
> system libraries.  Otherwise you couldn't use GPLed packages on HP/UX,
> Solaris, Tru64, etc.
>
> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
> the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable."

I see.  I seem to recall other package submissions that required
downloading libraries that didn't exist on all systems, but I can't find
them now.  Must be losing my mind...
	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