[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 413 bytes --] **I am looking for a possible partnership with a business or individual in your country so that I can make some investments there due to the prolonged civil war in my country, now the earthquake in Syria. I wish to relocate my investment capital to your country, any viable investment idea you suggest to me will be considered.* *Kindly, reply for us to discuss this further. Regards* *Al.Nabil, 69 years old.*
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1564 bytes --] On Dec 15 12:28, Ioannis Karydis wrote: > To whom it may concern, > > The Hellenic Open University (HOU) is a non-profit institution that > uses exclusively the Distance Learning Methodology for all the > undergraduate and postgraduate courses it offers. > > In the pursuit of its educational mission, the HOU intends to proceed > to the publication of print/digital educational material concerning > the discipline of Computer Science within the realm of the > postgraduate course PLS-60 Specialization in Software Engineering and > for this reason has assigned me the development of two chapters on > current methodologies and techniques for programming where I intend to > teach the use of Advanced methods for web programming. > > Currently it has been deemed necessary from an educational > perspective, to illustrate and enrich the aforementioned educational > material with the following: printscreens of the installation and use > of cygwin. > > Of course, the above items will be included given your agreement and > your written permission towards the HOU, while full reference will be > made to the original source in accordance to your wishes. No worries at all here. A pointer to the cygwin web site at https://cygwin.com and the Cygwin User's Guide at https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/cygwin-ug-net.html might be helpful to your students. Best Regards, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
To whom it may concern, The Hellenic Open University (HOU) is a non-profit institution that uses exclusively the Distance Learning Methodology for all the undergraduate and postgraduate courses it offers. In the pursuit of its educational mission, the HOU intends to proceed to the publication of print/digital educational material concerning the discipline of Computer Science within the realm of the postgraduate course PLS-60 Specialization in Software Engineering and for this reason has assigned me the development of two chapters on current methodologies and techniques for programming where I intend to teach the use of Advanced methods for web programming. Currently it has been deemed necessary from an educational perspective, to illustrate and enrich the aforementioned educational material with the following: printscreens of the installation and use of cygwin. Of course, the above items will be included given your agreement and your written permission towards the HOU, while full reference will be made to the original source in accordance to your wishes. Moreover, please note that the educational material to be published by the HOU is intended primarily for use by HOU students registered to the module "Modern programming paradigms" of the postgraduate course PLS-60 Specialization in Software Engineering and their respective teaching staff. This is not to exclude its future sale or use in related disciplines. Should you not be the sole rights holder of the aforementioned material, we kindly request that you inform me, so that I may proceed to acquire all necessary permissions on behalf of the HOU. Kindly note that I am presently referring to you on behalf of the institution; permissions of use should be given to the Hellenic Open University. We are looking forward to your positive reply in writing at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, For the Hellenic Open University, Ioannis Karydis Dept. of Informatics, Ionian University 7 Tsirigoti Square, Kerkyra 49100, Greece web: http://users.ionio.gr/~karydis/
On Dec 6, 2012, at 3:08 AM, Corinna Vinschen
> On Dec 6 01:19, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:43:50AM -0500, Chaz Littlejohn wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No problem, we'll add those links to the terms.
>>
>> Just to be really clear: These links should not be to the Cygwin web site.
>> You need to provide the exact sources that go with the binaries that you
>> distribute. You can't rely on the Cygwin site to provide those.
>
> Exactly. Apparently my wording was unclear. What I was trying to say
> is that you, Chaz, could create a sources download area on your web
> server where you provide the source packages of the OSS binaries you
> use. It's not sufficient to link to the upstream project page. That's
> a common misconception.
Ok, yes. That makes sense.Thanks for the clarification.
On Dec 6 01:19, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:43:50AM -0500, Chaz Littlejohn wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >No problem, we'll add those links to the terms.
>
> Just to be really clear: These links should not be to the Cygwin web site.
> You need to provide the exact sources that go with the binaries that you
> distribute. You can't rely on the Cygwin site to provide those.
Exactly. Apparently my wording was unclear. What I was trying to say
is that you, Chaz, could create a sources download area on your web
server where you provide the source packages of the OSS binaries you
use. It's not sufficient to link to the upstream project page. That's
a common misconception.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:43:50AM -0500, Chaz Littlejohn wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> 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.
>
>No problem, we'll add those links to the terms.
Just to be really clear: These links should not be to the Cygwin web site.
You need to provide the exact sources that go with the binaries that you
distribute. You can't rely on the Cygwin site to provide those.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 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.
No problem, we'll add those links to the terms.
Thanks,
Chaz
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 âaggregateâ 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
> 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." Our terms still need to be updated (https://pokeit.co/terms) It was asked that this conversation be moved to the licensing mailing list. Previous messages can be found here: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-12/msg00007.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-12/msg00020.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-12/msg00024.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-12/msg00052.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-12/msg00053.html (IANAL, applies to me as well) Thanks, Chaz
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
[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 >
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
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
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
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. > > >
It's taken me three years to find the time, but I've finally gotten around to writing a script to make the regular checking of the licenses in the almost-2000 Cygwin packages a feasible task. This email is just to ask for a sanity check of what I'm doing. I don't think there is any shortcut for companies who wish to be very careful to legally review the Cygwin licenses. The difficulties I see in checking the Cygwin licenses are these: 1) There is no single umbrella license or legal statement, just a collection of software packages, with one or more licenses included in each package. 2) There is no complete and explicit list of licenses. 3) There is no copy of, nor pointer to, all the licenses. 4) No checking of license compatibility has been provided. 5) There is no statement that every package even has a license. 6) There is no statement about what legal processes are followed to ensure that each contributed package meets Cygwin's license requirements (e.g. a license is included, copyright is clear, license is compatible with Cygwin's overall license). There is just a statement in http://cygwin.com/setup.html recommending to include documentation like "copyright licence" [if you have it]. Perhaps this is addressed indirectly by requiring packages to already be accepted in "a major Linux distribution"? I also note that the topic has not been discussed on the Cygwin license list after I asked about checking the licenses, on Fri, 02 Oct 2009. I also appreciate that Cygwin is put together on a volunteer basis, and no one actively manages the legal license situation. If anyone is interested in discussing that, I have some ideas about lightweight processes for making the downstream checking work easier for users. Anyway, the main task of my script is to actually *find* all the licenses and distil them down into a set of license files with repetitions removed. Some years ago, Corinna kindly told me that: > A list of licenses used in Cygwin packages is in the cygwin-docs > package, plus, every package with a non-standard license typically > provides it under /usr/share/doc/<packagename>. However, there's no > guarantee that the list is complete. But I noticed that in the cygwin-doc package, there seems to be no list of licenses. There are lots of man pages, a few files under usr/share, but I couldn't find a list of licenses, except this comment in usr/share/info/cygwin-ug-net.info.gz: Are the Cygwin tools free software?Yes. Parts are GNU software (gcc, gas, ld, etc.), parts are covered by the standard X11 license, some of it is public domain, some of it was written by Red Hat and placed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). None of it is shareware. You don't have to pay anyone to use it but you should be sure to read the copyright section of the FAQ for more information on how the GNU GPL may affect your use of these tools. This is also what is said, perhaps more succinctly, at http://www.cygwin.com/licensing.html: "Most of the tools are covered by the GNU GPL, some are public domain, and others have a X11 style license." If that's what Corinna was referring to, IMHO it's no help at all from the point of view of a legal check, since it only makes a statement about the licenses of an unspecified subset of packages. So legally, it means every package must be examined to find all the licenses that apply. So, it seems that there is no shortcut, and I'm now finishing my script to automate as much of the work as possible. I'm at the stage now where I can use the script to help me quickly find the license in each package. At about 2 mins per package, I calculate I now have roughly 3,600 minutes of work ahead of me. :-( Regards, luke
On May 24 04:49, M, Srinivasan wrote: > Hi Team, > please provide the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) and the > Commerce Classification and Tracking System number (CCATS), if > applicable, or the local equivalent, such as the âExport Control > Ratingâ for exports from the EU under the terms of the EU dual-use > lists (EC Regulation 428/2009 as amended), for Cygwin and version is > 1.5.25.7-r0. If this product is classified as "5D002", please advise > whether it qualifies for any license exceptions. > > In case you are not the right team to contact, could you please give > the contact details to conatct, for ECCN Information http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-licensing/2007-q2/msg00001.html Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Hi Team, please provide the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) and the Commerce Classification and Tracking System number (CCATS), if applicable, or the local equivalent, such as the “Export Control Rating” for exports from the EU under the terms of the EU dual-use lists (EC Regulation 428/2009 as amended), for Cygwin and version is 1.5.25.7-r0. If this product is classified as "5D002", please advise whether it qualifies for any license exceptions. In case you are not the right team to contact, could you please give the contact details to conatct, for ECCN Information with regards, Srinivasan.M
On Mar 21 13:43, Max Müller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question concerning the file get_high_address.c.
> It contains
>
> (C) COPYRIGHT CRAY RESEARCH, INC.
> UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
> ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
> .Â
> Â
> Could you please tell me whether use is possible without infringement?
The copyright notice was old and outdated. The original contributor of
this file to the upstream project, SGI, fixed the copyright notice
already back in 2000. I just did the same in the Cygwin LTP testsuite.
Other than that, we can't give you definitive legal advice here, for
hopefully obvious reasons (IANAL and all that). Have a look into the
updated, correct copyright notice and see if it works for you. If you
need definitive legal advice, you should really ask your legal dept.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
Hello, I have a question concerning the file get_high_address.c. It contains (C) COPYRIGHT CRAY RESEARCH, INC. UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. . Could you please tell me whether use is possible without infringement? Thank you.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 05:13:21PM -0800, tom honermann wrote:
>On 1/27/2011 4:14 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 01/27/2011 04:57 PM, tom honermann wrote:
>>> I've been looking into Cygwin licensing and redistribution regarding the
>>> Cygwin DLL and various GNU utilities. The current Cygwin license
>>> (http://cygwin.com/licensing.html) states (and I'm paraphrasing) that
>>> programs that use the Cygwin DLL do not need to be licensed under GPLv2
>>> (or compatible) so long as they are distributed with a license that
>>> meets the OSI's open source definition AND that the cygwin DLL is not
>>> distributed with the program. With the release of the GPLv3 license and
>>> subsequent re-licensing, some of the GNU utilities included with the
>>> Cygwin distribution are now GPLv3 (or later). The GPLv2 and GPLv3
>>> licenses are not compatible
>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility).
>> Wrong list. Ask on cygwin-licensing.
>Thanks Eric. Copying cygwin-licensing instead now...
>>> The way I interpret this, this effectively means that no entity other than RedHat
>>> can distribute GPLv3 GNU utilities dynamically linked with the Cygwin
>>> DLL and include the Cygwin DLL with the GNU utilities (without
>>> additional permissions by RedHat). This also means that no entity other
>>> than RedHat can redistribute the RedHat Cygwin distribution or build
>>> their own Cygwin distribution unless all programs are linked with a
>>> static version of the Cygwin library (again, without additional
>>> permissions by RedHat). Does this sound right? If so, is this an
>>> intentional property of the Cygwin license?
>> Short answer - wrong interpretation. The cygwin license exception
>> specifically states that a GPLv3 program (by virtue of being an OSI
>> approved license) can be linked against cygwin and distributed as though
>> the GPLv2 of cygwin were not present. Therefore, the GPLv2-only nature
>> of cygwin does not interfere with the GPLv3 license of the program.
>
>The exception posted at http://cygwin.com/licensing.html explicitly
>states "Note that this does not apply to the Cygwin??? DLL itself. If
>you distribute the Cygwin??? DLL, either in its original form or in a
>form modified by you, you must adhere to the terms of the GPL".
>
>I've been reading this as requiring that distribution of programs that
>use the Cygwin DLL either must not distribute the Cygwin DLL (ie, the
>program must be installed and used with an existing Cygwin
>installation), or, if the distribution does include the Cygwin DLL,
>then uses of the Cygwin DLL must be in accordance with the GPL(v2).
>Perhaps this statement is only meant to indicate that changes to the
>Cygwin DLL itself must be licensed in accordance with the GPL(v2)? As
>stated, it isn't clear that the open source licensing exception applies
>to copies of the Cygwin DLL distributed by entities other than Red Hat.
The sole intent of that paragraph is to underscore the fact that if you
distribute a binary Cygwin DLL you must provide sources for the DLL.
There is no override to the GPLv2 license under which the Cygwin DLL and
its assocated utilities are provided.
So, again: if your distribution contains cygwin1.dll or mount.exe or
any of the binaries which are built from the winsup source directory
used to build the core of Cygwin then you must adhere to the GPL and
provide the sources too.
On 1/27/2011 4:14 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/27/2011 04:57 PM, tom honermann wrote: >> I've been looking into Cygwin licensing and redistribution regarding the >> Cygwin DLL and various GNU utilities. The current Cygwin license >> (http://cygwin.com/licensing.html) states (and I'm paraphrasing) that >> programs that use the Cygwin DLL do not need to be licensed under GPLv2 >> (or compatible) so long as they are distributed with a license that >> meets the OSI's open source definition AND that the cygwin DLL is not >> distributed with the program. With the release of the GPLv3 license and >> subsequent re-licensing, some of the GNU utilities included with the >> Cygwin distribution are now GPLv3 (or later). The GPLv2 and GPLv3 >> licenses are not compatible >> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility). > Wrong list. Ask on cygwin-licensing. Thanks Eric. Copying cygwin-licensing instead now... >> The way I interpret this, this effectively means that no entity other than RedHat >> can distribute GPLv3 GNU utilities dynamically linked with the Cygwin >> DLL and include the Cygwin DLL with the GNU utilities (without >> additional permissions by RedHat). This also means that no entity other >> than RedHat can redistribute the RedHat Cygwin distribution or build >> their own Cygwin distribution unless all programs are linked with a >> static version of the Cygwin library (again, without additional >> permissions by RedHat). Does this sound right? If so, is this an >> intentional property of the Cygwin license? > Short answer - wrong interpretation. The cygwin license exception > specifically states that a GPLv3 program (by virtue of being an OSI > approved license) can be linked against cygwin and distributed as though > the GPLv2 of cygwin were not present. Therefore, the GPLv2-only nature > of cygwin does not interfere with the GPLv3 license of the program. The exception posted at http://cygwin.com/licensing.html explicitly states "Note that this does not apply to the Cygwin⢠DLL itself. If you distribute the Cygwin⢠DLL, either in its original form or in a form modified by you, you must adhere to the terms of the GPL". I've been reading this as requiring that distribution of programs that use the Cygwin DLL either must not distribute the Cygwin DLL (ie, the program must be installed and used with an existing Cygwin installation), or, if the distribution does include the Cygwin DLL, then uses of the Cygwin DLL must be in accordance with the GPL(v2). Perhaps this statement is only meant to indicate that changes to the Cygwin DLL itself must be licensed in accordance with the GPL(v2)? As stated, it isn't clear that the open source licensing exception applies to copies of the Cygwin DLL distributed by entities other than Red Hat.
On Apr 8 01:10, Dave Sweetser wrote: > Hi, > > I'm a technical writer and am developing documentation that will be used by > a number of my customers to develop web services. This documentation will > include a number of example web service implementations that use tools like > Cygwin's OpenSSL tool. However, I will only be providing documentation to > my customers. If my customers want to actually use OpenSSL themselves, they > would need to download the OpenSSL software from cygwin.com and comply with > the licensing terms. > > My question is: Can my manual incorporate documentation that I download from > cygwin.com, such as the OpenSLL man page? In performing my due diligence, I > read the Cygwin Licensing Page but I didn't find any copyright information > there. I also looked through the mail archives and likewise didn't find > this question addressed there. The Cygwin net distribution consists of many independent OSS packages. Each of these packages has its own copyright. You have to look into the copyrights of every single package you take documentation from to find out under which conditions you can use it. Only as far as the *Cygwin* documentation(*) is concerned, the copyright is stated in the sources of the documentation, in the Cygwin package, file winsup/doc/legal.sgml: Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Red Hat, Inc. GNUPro, the GNUPro logo, and the Red Hat logo are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. All other brand and product names are trademarks of their respective owners. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this documentation provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this documentation under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this documentation into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the Free Software Foundation. Corinna (*) http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Hi, I'm a technical writer and am developing documentation that will be used by a number of my customers to develop web services. This documentation will include a number of example web service implementations that use tools like Cygwin's OpenSSL tool. However, I will only be providing documentation to my customers. If my customers want to actually use OpenSSL themselves, they would need to download the OpenSSL software from cygwin.com and comply with the licensing terms. My question is: Can my manual incorporate documentation that I download from cygwin.com, such as the OpenSLL man page? In performing my due diligence, I read the Cygwin Licensing Page but I didn't find any copyright information there. I also looked through the mail archives and likewise didn't find this question addressed there. Can you let me know if my manual can incorporate documentation such as man pages downloaded from Cygwin.com? If this is acceptable, do I need to include a copyright statement referencing Cygwin? Thank you very much for your help with my question. Sincerely, Dave Sweetser
The URL http://cygwin.com/licensing.html (in summary) says that most Cygwin software is licensed under GNU GPL, X11 copyright (not sure how that's a license), and some are public domain. I looked through all the cygwin-licensing mail archives. I saw that in August 2008 Marvin faced the same situation I have. I didn't see a result for that. I discussed this on the general mailing list, and summarise the results here. This email summarises my understanding of what a company would have to do to check that their internal use of Cygwin (no re-distribution) complies with all the licenses. 1. Finding all the licenses There in so 100% guaranteed complete list of all the licenses used by all the packages (rather than the above broad statement about an incomplete set of the licenses)? To find all the licenses, Corinna pointed out that: > A list of licenses used in Cygwin packages is in the cygwin-docs > package, plus, every package with a non-standard license typically > provides it under /usr/share/doc/<packagename>. However, there's no > guarantee that the list is complete. - That's enough to work with, although the idea that the list I create could be incomplete is worrying. - Using the information above, I can create a script that produces a list of all the licenses. I guess if the license files themselves have varying names (ideally they'd all be just "license.txt"), I may need to then add some heuristics to pick the license file out. From that I can then create something that produces just a set of the unique licenses. And then I can pass that to our legal department. - I can also flexibly diff the constructed license text against new Cygwin releases, to identify changes to licenses and new licenses added for new packages. 2. Checking that the licenses are compatible with each other. - Each company has to do this themselves. Cygwin is basically a volunteer effort, and no one has tried to do this. (This contrasts to Debian/Ubuntu which do check the compatibility of the licenses in their distribution.) 3. Are all the package allowed to be used commercially? - Again, this has to be checked by each company. Cygwin is basically a volunteer effort, and no one has checked this. - The package submission process does not attempt to screen for such packages and record such information. 4. Does each package have a license? - Unknown. You would find out by doing step 1. - I don't think the package submission process tries to screen for packages that have no license, and record that fact. 5. Selecting the packages you can use - The best suggestion for this is to mirror a download, identify which packages are okay, or which are not okay, and then create a secondary mirror that just contains the packages you want to use, or that you feel are safe to use. Allow users to install from that pruned mirror. And here are some questions that are more about processes within the Cygwin community: Does anyone here know if any company has ever performed due diligence and tried to comply with all the licenses for all the Cygwin packages? I can think of ways to capture some extra information when new packages are submitted to Cygwin, to make it easy to answer questions 3 and 4, and how to guarantee the list of licenses in the cygwin-docs package is complete. Might someone be interested in making changes to the Cygwin new package acceptance process? If I wrote some scripts that help support the legal check process, and submitted them here, do you think they might be considered for use to ease the burden on others? Regards, luke