* compiled files under GPL?
@ 2003-09-26 23:29 caj
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: caj @ 2003-09-26 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Hi!
Sorry, I just wanted a clarifcation of something I thought I read on
cygwin-apps...
Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's gcc/g++ is
automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some violating...
sorry.
Is this still true under -mno-cygwin?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: compiled files under GPL?
2003-09-29 21:14 ` Brian Ford
@ 2003-09-29 21:38 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2003-09-29 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Matthew O. Persico wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >?On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>> >
>> >>>?Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's
>> >>>?gcc/g++ is automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some
>> >>>?violating...
>> >>>?sorry.
>> >>
>> >>?This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. ?Unless
>> >>?you have purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
>> >
>> >?There are some exceptions, IIRC. ?For more information, see
>> >?<http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136>?or consult a lawyer.
>> >?Igor
>>
>> I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg
>> your indulgence. From the link above:
>>
>> "To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out
>> any binaries, you must also make the source available. "
>>
>> Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product
>> (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source
>> exposed, etc.
>>
>> BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers
>> or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I
>> don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument
>> goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies.
>>
>> Is that a reasonable interpretation?
>>
>IANAL
>YANALATEYHSMBSI
>
>In-house use is normally not in violation of the GPL.
>
>In your example, as long as your program is never sold or distributed in
>binary form (ie. you did not sell or give it to the bank in binary
>form because the bank owned your labor that created it), and the bank
>never sells or distributes the binaries outside itself, I think you are
>ok.
>
>Since these types of distinctions look legally cloudy to me, I would
>hesitate strongly to agree with your "goes by the wayside for all
>non-software development companies" statement.
>
>That said, you should consult a lawyer. No one on this list is
>a qualified GPL authority. Only the courts can make a determination.
>
>CGF, the closest person here to an authority, hates GPL conversations.
>Don't expect him to speak up unless you are clearly in violation, or this
>conversation has already (as it probably has) gone on too long.
I've asked someone more knowledgeable than I to offer an opinion on this
issue but, really, as Brian says, the bottom line is to consult a
lawyer. If this is a potential real world application, and you really
are writing banking software, then you certainly don't want to just go by
the opinions of a bunch of mailing list geeks.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: compiled files under GPL?
2003-09-27 3:58 ` Matthew O. Persico
@ 2003-09-29 21:14 ` Brian Ford
2003-09-29 21:38 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Brian Ford @ 2003-09-29 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Matthew O. Persico wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
> >
> >>> Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's
> >>> gcc/g++ is automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some
> >>> violating...
> >>> sorry.
> >>
> >> This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. Unless
> >> you have purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
> >
> > There are some exceptions, IIRC. For more information, see
> > <http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136> or consult a lawyer.
> > Igor
>
> I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg
> your indulgence. From the link above:
>
> "To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out
> any binaries, you must also make the source available. "
>
> Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product
> (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source
> exposed, etc.
>
> BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers
> or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I
> don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument
> goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies.
>
> Is that a reasonable interpretation?
>
IANAL
YANALATEYHSMBSI
In-house use is normally not in violation of the GPL.
In your example, as long as your program is never sold or distributed in
binary form (ie. you did not sell or give it to the bank in binary
form because the bank owned your labor that created it), and the bank
never sells or distributes the binaries outside itself, I think you are
ok.
Since these types of distinctions look legally cloudy to me, I would
hesitate strongly to agree with your "goes by the wayside for all
non-software development companies" statement.
That said, you should consult a lawyer. No one on this list is
a qualified GPL authority. Only the courts can make a determination.
CGF, the closest person here to an authority, hates GPL conversations.
Don't expect him to speak up unless you are clearly in violation, or this
conversation has already (as it probably has) gone on too long.
--
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax: 314-551-8444
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: compiled files under GPL?
2003-09-27 0:30 ` Igor Pechtchanski
@ 2003-09-27 3:58 ` Matthew O. Persico
2003-09-29 21:14 ` Brian Ford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Matthew O. Persico @ 2003-09-27 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin, Brian Ford; +Cc: cygwin
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII", Size: 1525 bytes --]
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>
>>> Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's
>>> gcc/g++ is
>>> automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some
>>> violating...
>>> sorry.
>>
>> This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. Unless
>> you have
>> purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
>
> There are some exceptions, IIRC. For more information, see
> <http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136> or consult a lawyer.
> Igor
I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg your indulgence. From the link above:
"To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out any binaries, you must also make the source available. "
Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source exposed, etc.
BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies.
Is that a reasonable interpretation?
--
Matthew O. Persico
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: compiled files under GPL?
2003-09-27 0:22 Brian Ford
@ 2003-09-27 0:30 ` Igor Pechtchanski
2003-09-27 3:58 ` Matthew O. Persico
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Igor Pechtchanski @ 2003-09-27 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Ford; +Cc: cygwin
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
> >Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's gcc/g++ is
> >automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some violating...
> >sorry.
>
> This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. Unless you have
> purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
There are some exceptions, IIRC. For more information, see
<http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136> or consult a lawyer.
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!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: compiled files under GPL?
@ 2003-09-27 0:22 Brian Ford
2003-09-27 0:30 ` Igor Pechtchanski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Brian Ford @ 2003-09-27 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
>Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's gcc/g++ is
>automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some violating...
>sorry.
>
This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. Unless you have
purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes.
>Is this still true under -mno-cygwin?
>
No.
--
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax: 314-551-8444
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-29 21:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-26 23:29 compiled files under GPL? caj
2003-09-27 0:22 Brian Ford
2003-09-27 0:30 ` Igor Pechtchanski
2003-09-27 3:58 ` Matthew O. Persico
2003-09-29 21:14 ` Brian Ford
2003-09-29 21:38 ` Christopher Faylor
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).