From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: DJ Delorie To: smorris@nexen.com Cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Cygwin license Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <199903170044.TAA18185@envy.delorie.com> In-reply-to: < 199903170029.TAA12499@brocade.nexen.com > (message from SteveMorris on Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:29:56 -0500 (EST)) References: <19990316130132.20506.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com> <19990316104140.A1113@cygnus.com> <199903161757.MAA12041@brocade.nexen.com> <199903162021.PAA20648@envy.delorie.com> <199903162234.RAA12379@brocade.nexen.com> <199903162245.RAA17348@envy.delorie.com> <199903170029.TAA12499@brocade.nexen.com> <199903170029.TAA12499@brocade.nexen.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00525.html OK, massive legal arguments (from both sides) aside, it is Cygnus's intent that any programs that are linked with libcygwin.a must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. RMS's opinion on DLLs (and shared libraries in Unix) is that the mere fact that they exist in a separate file does not in itself make them a separate program in the eyes of the GPL (which has itself been subject to lengthy legal review). Since the two (your exe and cygwin's dll) are inseparable for the purpose of running your program, they are legally (according to the GPL) considered *one* program. This means that the GPL on the dll *does* apply to programs that require it. If your program can operate *without* a cygwin dll available, then I would probably agree that the libcygwin.a code *may* fall into that "interoperability" regime (although, at the moment, any program that uses libcygwin.a usually does so in such a way that it will not operate without cygwin1.dll) if they avoid anything in libccrt0, libcmain, getopt, dll_entry, or dll_main, which aren't in the dll at all (the remainder of the objects are dll thunks, which can easily be regenerated from cygwin1.dll itself with microsoft tools). -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: DJ Delorie To: smorris@nexen.com Cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Cygwin license Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199903170044.TAA18185@envy.delorie.com> References: <19990316130132.20506.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com> <19990316104140.A1113@cygnus.com> <199903161757.MAA12041@brocade.nexen.com> <199903162021.PAA20648@envy.delorie.com> <199903162234.RAA12379@brocade.nexen.com> <199903162245.RAA17348@envy.delorie.com> <199903170029.TAA12499@brocade.nexen.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00526.html Message-ID: <19990331194500.qqJTOpPGbAFxj-b4KjKWcCtSyn3k5z6J8CN0sUk_QFk@z> OK, massive legal arguments (from both sides) aside, it is Cygnus's intent that any programs that are linked with libcygwin.a must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. RMS's opinion on DLLs (and shared libraries in Unix) is that the mere fact that they exist in a separate file does not in itself make them a separate program in the eyes of the GPL (which has itself been subject to lengthy legal review). Since the two (your exe and cygwin's dll) are inseparable for the purpose of running your program, they are legally (according to the GPL) considered *one* program. This means that the GPL on the dll *does* apply to programs that require it. If your program can operate *without* a cygwin dll available, then I would probably agree that the libcygwin.a code *may* fall into that "interoperability" regime (although, at the moment, any program that uses libcygwin.a usually does so in such a way that it will not operate without cygwin1.dll) if they avoid anything in libccrt0, libcmain, getopt, dll_entry, or dll_main, which aren't in the dll at all (the remainder of the objects are dll thunks, which can easily be regenerated from cygwin1.dll itself with microsoft tools). -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com