licensing NOT clear for me

licensing NOT clear for me

[creative1]

Hi there!

I am reading all these posts about the license on cygnus, well
several weeks ago I asked something that NOBODY
answered clearly.

It was this simple:
I have a program under unix, under GPL license, etc...
No problem there.
Then I decided to make some changes so it compiles
under cygwin and here is the problem...
I make my binaries available to the public but:
Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???
It seems i have to include the source code of the
library, but that would make a 20 megas cygwin
source (more than 20 times the actual program).

Can someone help?
I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
program. Maybe I am wrong, but that is why
I asked and nobody seems to know the answer.

I feel like breaking the law and give the phreaking
.dll to everyone! I know, but you know how
it feels to ask this question 5 times and do NOT
receive an answer? and sorry but the .txt doesn't
help much with my english.

help would be really appreciated.

Joaquin Grech

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
!     C r e a t i v i t y     M u s t    S u r v i v e        !
---------------------------------------------------------------
!  Fido: 2:341/19.67                 Euronet: 25:928/100.67   !
!  Internet: creative1@bigfoot.com                            !
!  Http://surf.to/creative                  Ya me direis :)   !
---------------------------------------------------------------



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 10:53:04AM -0500, creative1 wrote:
>I am reading all these posts about the license on cygnus, well several
>weeks ago I asked something that NOBODY answered clearly.
>
>It was this simple:
>I have a program under unix, under GPL license, etc...
>No problem there.
>
>Then I decided to make some changes so it compiles under cygwin and
>here is the problem...  I make my binaries available to the public but:
>Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???  It seems i have to
>include the source code of the library, but that would make a 20 megas
>cygwin source (more than 20 times the actual program).
>
>Can someone help?  I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
>program.  Maybe I am wrong, but that is why I asked and nobody seems to
>know the answer.

You do not have to include the sources.  You just have to be prepared to
make the sources available to someone via the same mechanism that you
distributed your program.

That means that if you distribute the program on diskette you have to be
prepared to provide the sources on diskette.  If you distributed the
sources on the web, you have to be able to make the sources available
via the web.

One thing that I don't believe anyone has mentioned (and I hope that DJ
will correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can charge a processing fee
for providing the sources.  That means that if you provide your program
to someone who would now like to get the cygwin sources you can say "Ok.
There will be a $50 handling charge.  Please send it to me so that I can
process your request.  Or, you can go to
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the sources from there for
free."

Check out http://www.gnu.org/ to see what they charge for processing
fees.

-chris

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[creative1]

>

Hi there!  Or, you can go to

> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the sources from there for
> free."

You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
(www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?
Can I do that?
That would be GREAT! :)

Joaquin Grech

---------------------------------------------------------------
!     C r e a t i v i t y     M u s t    S u r v i v e        !
---------------------------------------------------------------
!  Fido: 2:341/19.67                 Euronet: 25:928/100.67   !
!  Internet: creative1@bigfoot.com                            !
!  Http://surf.to/creative                  Ya me direis :)   !
---------------------------------------------------------------



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> You do not have to include the sources.  You just have to be
> prepared to make the sources available to someone via the same
> mechanism that you distributed your program.

Note that this option is only available if you are able to include a
*written* offer to do so *with* the binaries.  Obviously, you can't do
that with internet downloads.  For those cases, putting the sources
with the binaries (so that the user may download them if they choose,
at the time they download the binaries) is the only option the GPL
allows.

GPL 3 may change this, allowing (for example) cdrom binaries with web
source, provided it's the cdrom company's web site.

> That means that if you distribute the program on diskette you have
> to be prepared to provide the sources on diskette.  If you
> distributed the sources on the web, you have to be able to make the
> sources available via the web.

Caveat: RMS claims that the sources must be on the same site.  The
reason is that if you don't do that, you aren't in control of the
sources and can't guarantee that they'll be available whenever the
binary is available.

> One thing that I don't believe anyone has mentioned (and I hope that
> DJ will correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can charge a processing
> fee for providing the sources.

You may charge *only* the actual costs of copying and sending the
sources.  You can charge $50 only if it actually costs you $50 to send
the sources.  You are not allowed to profit from distributing sources
for a binary they already have, nor may you charge a license or
"penalty" fee for such sources.

You may charge as much as you like for binary/source combinations,
source-only distribution, or binary-only distributions (but in that
last case you must provide sources to those binaries for copying costs
only).

> Or, you can go to http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the
> sources from there for free."

I wouldn't recommend this.  The first time we update the sources on
sourceware, all those binary distributions become illegal because the
sources for *those* binaries are no longer available.

Note that this is what DJGPP's exception to the GPL *does* allow.
Specifically, if you use the *unchanged* binaries from an *official*
djgpp distribution, then the result of linking in libc.a doesn't
itself make your program GPL, but you must give your customers enough
information to get any official DJGPP distribution for themselves.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
> (www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
> If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
> and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?

As I explained in my other email, I wouldn't recommend this because
you can't guarantee you're complying with the GPL if you do this.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 11:17:24AM -0500, creative1 wrote:
>>
>
>Hi there!  Or, you can go to
>
>> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the sources from there for
>> free."
>
>You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
>(www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
>If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
>and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?
>Can I do that?
>That would be GREAT! :)

No.  I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that you can tell the person that
there will be a processing fee for you to make the sources available on
your web site.  If they are not willing to pay for this then you can
point the person to the Cygnus web site.  If you don't feel comfortable
asking for money you could say that it will take you XX days to make
the sources available.

These are essentially tricks to avoid having to put our sources on your
web site.  Unfortunately, I believe that the GPL is clear that you have
to make the sources available if someone asks.  It doesn't say that this
has to be either cheap or easy, though.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 11:35:17AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
>> (www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
>> If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
>> and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?
>
>As I explained in my other email, I wouldn't recommend this because
>you can't guarantee you're complying with the GPL if you do this.

Here are the appropriate clauses from the GPL:

3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
    Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
       code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
       above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
       give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
       performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
       corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections
       1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
       distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is allowed only
       for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
       object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
       Subsection b above.)

From the above, it seems to me that b) would be feasible for source
distributions on the web, unless "written offer" means something more
esoteric than actually including those words in a README.

What this means to me is that if someone asks for the sources you can say,
"Sure.  Give me a week to set things up for you on my web/ftp site and
provide me with a $xx processing fee.  Alternatively, if you'd like to
get the latest copy of cygwin you can go to http://sourceware.cygus.com/cygwin/ .
Bear in mind that this copy may not be the one that I used to build my
program but it probably will work just fine for you.  Otherwise, please
let me know if you'd like me to provide the sources on my ftp/web site."

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> From the above, it seems to me that b) would be feasible for source
> distributions on the web, unless "written offer" means something more
> esoteric than actually including those words in a README.

According to RMS, "written" means paper, with a date and signature (or
other identifying mark).  A computer file isn't legally binding
because it can easily be modified.  Personally, I would think a
PGP-signed text file would be sufficient if it included the date
inside the message, assuming you can verify the signature in the
future (you can always generate a new PGP key and toss the old one).

Still, you'd have to generate a new signed file every day (to get the
full 3-year term) and the user can always download a new one to
illegally extend their term.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[John Mullee]

> Hi there!
> I make my binaries available to the public but:
> Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???
> It seems i have to include the source code of the
> library, but that would make a 20 megas cygwin
> source (more than 20 times the actual program).
> 
> Can someone help?
> I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
> program. Maybe I am wrong, but that is why
> I asked and nobody seems to know the answer.
> Joaquin Grech

(I'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong here.. :)

The issue is simply:
 - if you distribute on cdrom, include the cywin sources (no problem,
right?)
 - if you distribute on floppy, include the cywin sources (aargh!)
 - if you distribute via http/ftp, place the cygwin sources on the same
site
   permitting users who _chose_ to do so to get the relevant sources.

You could make it awkward by splitting the files into 1MB lumps and use
some strange compression-format, if you wanted to discourage unnecessary
dowloads.

You _don't_ have to wrap _all_ the sources up in the same archive. They
can be separately-downloadable files.

I'm not aware of any separate source archive which produces _only_ the
dll and not
the tools; such an archive, if you created it, would both fulfil GPL
requirements
and be easier to fit on some floppies.
FWIW, the cdk/src/winsup directory - i.e. the sources for the cygwin dll
-
zip into about 700 kb. (one floppy disk!)

Now, which bit don't you understand ? 8)

john

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

>  - if you distribute on cdrom, include the cywin sources (no problem,
> right?)

cygwin *and* your program's sources, but right - no problem if you
include all the sources on the cdrom.

>  - if you distribute on floppy, include the cywin sources (aargh!)

That's a lot of floppies.

>  - if you distribute via http/ftp, place the cygwin sources on the
> same site permitting users who _chose_ to do so to get the relevant
> sources.

Yes, but again, both cygwin's sources and the sources to your
programs.

> You could make it awkward by splitting the files into 1MB lumps and use
> some strange compression-format, if you wanted to discourage unnecessary
> dowloads.

zipsplit does this for you.  Note that purposefully obfuscating the
sources or complicating the download violates the GPL.

> You _don't_ have to wrap _all_ the sources up in the same
> archive. They can be separately-downloadable files.

Yes, but they all must be *available*.  Breaking up the sources and
the binaries is actually a good idea.

> I'm not aware of any separate source archive which produces _only_
> the dll and not the tools; such an archive, if you created it, would
> both fulfil GPL requirements and be easier to fit on some floppies.
> FWIW, the cdk/src/winsup directory - i.e. the sources for the cygwin
> dll - zip into about 700 kb. (one floppy disk!)

You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
about 4Mb.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Martyn Foster]

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> >  - if you distribute on cdrom, include the cywin sources (no problem,
> > right?)
> 
> cygwin *and* your program's sources, but right - no problem if you
> include all the sources on the cdrom.

Hi,

For clarification on this, one can sell non-GPL source code that
cannot be used without cygwin under any license? But I cannot sell
a linked version without it being under GPL. I can make a wrapper
DLL around my calls to cygwin functions and distribute it for free 
(GPL) and sell my own code that links to the DLL but is a seperate
package and contains no code from either cygwin.dll or the wrapper 
- however at the current time there is no way to generate a dll 
that does such a thing. But I can alter cygwin myself to
generate such a beast and that is also OK.




Martyn


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> For clarification on this, one can sell non-GPL source code that
> cannot be used without cygwin under any license?  But I cannot sell
> a linked version without it being under GPL. I can make a wrapper
> DLL around my calls to cygwin functions and distribute it for free 
> (GPL) and sell my own code that links to the DLL but is a seperate
> package and contains no code from either cygwin.dll or the wrapper 
> - however at the current time there is no way to generate a dll 
> that does such a thing. But I can alter cygwin myself to
> generate such a beast and that is also OK.

If you generated such a wrapper and distributed it under the GPL,
you're right back where you belong - even if it's your source
originally.  Once the user has that GPL'd dll, you have certain
obligations to them that include giving them the source to the rest of
the program.

However, if you're building such a chain of dlls just to subvert the
GPL, it won't work.  Cygwin is still part of your program, and you
still have to provide the sources to everything.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[John Mullee]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Yes, but again, both cygwin's sources and the sources to your
well, kinda obvious from our context..

> purposefully obfuscating the sources or complicating the
> download violates the GPL.

Is that right? surely having them available 'on request' is enough?
I don't recall mentions of distribution formats in the GPL, just the
'medium' - which I would take to mean 'on the same ftp site' in
this context ..

> > FWIW, the cdk/src/winsup directory - i.e. the sources for the cygwin
> > dll - zip into about 700 kb. (one floppy disk!)
> You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
> about 4Mb.

I wonder: will someone prepare such a (gpl-valid) archive ? ..

john

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> Is that right? surely having them available 'on request' is enough?

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
 making modifications to it."

I interpret this as meaning that obfuscated sources are not allowed.

> I don't recall mentions of distribution formats in the GPL, just the
> 'medium' - which I would take to mean 'on the same ftp site' in this
> context ..

I interpret "medium" as including the file format.  If I make up a
format that nobody else can read, then I am not providing sources at
all.  I suggest using the same format as the binaries when possible,
because then you know that if the user can get to the binaries, they
must also be able to get to the sources.

"Medium" to me means whatever it takes to get you a set of editable
sources.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[John Mullee]

> Hi there!
> I make my binaries available to the public but:
> Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???
> It seems i have to include the source code of the
> library, but that would make a 20 megas cygwin
> source (more than 20 times the actual program).
> 
> Can someone help?
> I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
> program. Maybe I am wrong, but that is why
> I asked and nobody seems to know the answer.
> Joaquin Grech

(I'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong here.. :)

The issue is simply:
 - if you distribute on cdrom, include the cywin sources (no problem,
right?)
 - if you distribute on floppy, include the cywin sources (aargh!)
 - if you distribute via http/ftp, place the cygwin sources on the same
site
   permitting users who _chose_ to do so to get the relevant sources.

You could make it awkward by splitting the files into 1MB lumps and use
some strange compression-format, if you wanted to discourage unnecessary
dowloads.

You _don't_ have to wrap _all_ the sources up in the same archive. They
can be separately-downloadable files.

I'm not aware of any separate source archive which produces _only_ the
dll and not
the tools; such an archive, if you created it, would both fulfil GPL
requirements
and be easier to fit on some floppies.
FWIW, the cdk/src/winsup directory - i.e. the sources for the cygwin dll
-
zip into about 700 kb. (one floppy disk!)

Now, which bit don't you understand ? 8)

john

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

>  - if you distribute on cdrom, include the cywin sources (no problem,
> right?)

cygwin *and* your program's sources, but right - no problem if you
include all the sources on the cdrom.

>  - if you distribute on floppy, include the cywin sources (aargh!)

That's a lot of floppies.

>  - if you distribute via http/ftp, place the cygwin sources on the
> same site permitting users who _chose_ to do so to get the relevant
> sources.

Yes, but again, both cygwin's sources and the sources to your
programs.

> You could make it awkward by splitting the files into 1MB lumps and use
> some strange compression-format, if you wanted to discourage unnecessary
> dowloads.

zipsplit does this for you.  Note that purposefully obfuscating the
sources or complicating the download violates the GPL.

> You _don't_ have to wrap _all_ the sources up in the same
> archive. They can be separately-downloadable files.

Yes, but they all must be *available*.  Breaking up the sources and
the binaries is actually a good idea.

> I'm not aware of any separate source archive which produces _only_
> the dll and not the tools; such an archive, if you created it, would
> both fulfil GPL requirements and be easier to fit on some floppies.
> FWIW, the cdk/src/winsup directory - i.e. the sources for the cygwin
> dll - zip into about 700 kb. (one floppy disk!)

You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
about 4Mb.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> You do not have to include the sources.  You just have to be
> prepared to make the sources available to someone via the same
> mechanism that you distributed your program.

Note that this option is only available if you are able to include a
*written* offer to do so *with* the binaries.  Obviously, you can't do
that with internet downloads.  For those cases, putting the sources
with the binaries (so that the user may download them if they choose,
at the time they download the binaries) is the only option the GPL
allows.

GPL 3 may change this, allowing (for example) cdrom binaries with web
source, provided it's the cdrom company's web site.

> That means that if you distribute the program on diskette you have
> to be prepared to provide the sources on diskette.  If you
> distributed the sources on the web, you have to be able to make the
> sources available via the web.

Caveat: RMS claims that the sources must be on the same site.  The
reason is that if you don't do that, you aren't in control of the
sources and can't guarantee that they'll be available whenever the
binary is available.

> One thing that I don't believe anyone has mentioned (and I hope that
> DJ will correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can charge a processing
> fee for providing the sources.

You may charge *only* the actual costs of copying and sending the
sources.  You can charge $50 only if it actually costs you $50 to send
the sources.  You are not allowed to profit from distributing sources
for a binary they already have, nor may you charge a license or
"penalty" fee for such sources.

You may charge as much as you like for binary/source combinations,
source-only distribution, or binary-only distributions (but in that
last case you must provide sources to those binaries for copying costs
only).

> Or, you can go to http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the
> sources from there for free."

I wouldn't recommend this.  The first time we update the sources on
sourceware, all those binary distributions become illegal because the
sources for *those* binaries are no longer available.

Note that this is what DJGPP's exception to the GPL *does* allow.
Specifically, if you use the *unchanged* binaries from an *official*
djgpp distribution, then the result of linking in libc.a doesn't
itself make your program GPL, but you must give your customers enough
information to get any official DJGPP distribution for themselves.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> Is that right? surely having them available 'on request' is enough?

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
 making modifications to it."

I interpret this as meaning that obfuscated sources are not allowed.

> I don't recall mentions of distribution formats in the GPL, just the
> 'medium' - which I would take to mean 'on the same ftp site' in this
> context ..

I interpret "medium" as including the file format.  If I make up a
format that nobody else can read, then I am not providing sources at
all.  I suggest using the same format as the binaries when possible,
because then you know that if the user can get to the binaries, they
must also be able to get to the sources.

"Medium" to me means whatever it takes to get you a set of editable
sources.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 11:17:24AM -0500, creative1 wrote:
>>
>
>Hi there!  Or, you can go to
>
>> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the sources from there for
>> free."
>
>You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
>(www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
>If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
>and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?
>Can I do that?
>That would be GREAT! :)

No.  I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that you can tell the person that
there will be a processing fee for you to make the sources available on
your web site.  If they are not willing to pay for this then you can
point the person to the Cygnus web site.  If you don't feel comfortable
asking for money you could say that it will take you XX days to make
the sources available.

These are essentially tricks to avoid having to put our sources on your
web site.  Unfortunately, I believe that the GPL is clear that you have
to make the sources available if someone asks.  It doesn't say that this
has to be either cheap or easy, though.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
> (www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
> If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
> and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?

As I explained in my other email, I wouldn't recommend this because
you can't guarantee you're complying with the GPL if you do this.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> From the above, it seems to me that b) would be feasible for source
> distributions on the web, unless "written offer" means something more
> esoteric than actually including those words in a README.

According to RMS, "written" means paper, with a date and signature (or
other identifying mark).  A computer file isn't legally binding
because it can easily be modified.  Personally, I would think a
PGP-signed text file would be sufficient if it included the date
inside the message, assuming you can verify the signature in the
future (you can always generate a new PGP key and toss the old one).

Still, you'd have to generate a new signed file every day (to get the
full 3-year term) and the user can always download a new one to
illegally extend their term.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> For clarification on this, one can sell non-GPL source code that
> cannot be used without cygwin under any license?  But I cannot sell
> a linked version without it being under GPL. I can make a wrapper
> DLL around my calls to cygwin functions and distribute it for free 
> (GPL) and sell my own code that links to the DLL but is a seperate
> package and contains no code from either cygwin.dll or the wrapper 
> - however at the current time there is no way to generate a dll 
> that does such a thing. But I can alter cygwin myself to
> generate such a beast and that is also OK.

If you generated such a wrapper and distributed it under the GPL,
you're right back where you belong - even if it's your source
originally.  Once the user has that GPL'd dll, you have certain
obligations to them that include giving them the source to the rest of
the program.

However, if you're building such a chain of dlls just to subvert the
GPL, it won't work.  Cygwin is still part of your program, and you
still have to provide the sources to everything.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[creative1]

>

Hi there!  Or, you can go to

> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the sources from there for
> free."

You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
(www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?
Can I do that?
That would be GREAT! :)

Joaquin Grech

---------------------------------------------------------------
!     C r e a t i v i t y     M u s t    S u r v i v e        !
---------------------------------------------------------------
!  Fido: 2:341/19.67                 Euronet: 25:928/100.67   !
!  Internet: creative1@bigfoot.com                            !
!  Http://surf.to/creative                  Ya me direis :)   !
---------------------------------------------------------------



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Martyn Foster]

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> >  - if you distribute on cdrom, include the cywin sources (no problem,
> > right?)
> 
> cygwin *and* your program's sources, but right - no problem if you
> include all the sources on the cdrom.

Hi,

For clarification on this, one can sell non-GPL source code that
cannot be used without cygwin under any license? But I cannot sell
a linked version without it being under GPL. I can make a wrapper
DLL around my calls to cygwin functions and distribute it for free 
(GPL) and sell my own code that links to the DLL but is a seperate
package and contains no code from either cygwin.dll or the wrapper 
- however at the current time there is no way to generate a dll 
that does such a thing. But I can alter cygwin myself to
generate such a beast and that is also OK.




Martyn


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 11:35:17AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> You are saying then, that i can include the .dll on the zip on my website
>> (www.unionlatina.org/kaosbot) and then just say something like
>> If you want the cygwin source go to sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin
>> and I don't even need to have the sources on the webserver?
>
>As I explained in my other email, I wouldn't recommend this because
>you can't guarantee you're complying with the GPL if you do this.

Here are the appropriate clauses from the GPL:

3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
    Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
       code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
       above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
       give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
       performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
       corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections
       1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
       distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is allowed only
       for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
       object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
       Subsection b above.)

licensing NOT clear for me

[creative1]

Hi there!

I am reading all these posts about the license on cygnus, well
several weeks ago I asked something that NOBODY
answered clearly.

It was this simple:
I have a program under unix, under GPL license, etc...
No problem there.
Then I decided to make some changes so it compiles
under cygwin and here is the problem...
I make my binaries available to the public but:
Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???
It seems i have to include the source code of the
library, but that would make a 20 megas cygwin
source (more than 20 times the actual program).

Can someone help?
I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
program. Maybe I am wrong, but that is why
I asked and nobody seems to know the answer.

I feel like breaking the law and give the phreaking
.dll to everyone! I know, but you know how
it feels to ask this question 5 times and do NOT
receive an answer? and sorry but the .txt doesn't
help much with my english.

help would be really appreciated.

Joaquin Grech

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
!     C r e a t i v i t y     M u s t    S u r v i v e        !
---------------------------------------------------------------
!  Fido: 2:341/19.67                 Euronet: 25:928/100.67   !
!  Internet: creative1@bigfoot.com                            !
!  Http://surf.to/creative                  Ya me direis :)   !
---------------------------------------------------------------



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[John Mullee]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Yes, but again, both cygwin's sources and the sources to your
well, kinda obvious from our context..

> purposefully obfuscating the sources or complicating the
> download violates the GPL.

Is that right? surely having them available 'on request' is enough?
I don't recall mentions of distribution formats in the GPL, just the
'medium' - which I would take to mean 'on the same ftp site' in
this context ..

> > FWIW, the cdk/src/winsup directory - i.e. the sources for the cygwin
> > dll - zip into about 700 kb. (one floppy disk!)
> You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
> about 4Mb.

I wonder: will someone prepare such a (gpl-valid) archive ? ..

john

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 10:53:04AM -0500, creative1 wrote:
>I am reading all these posts about the license on cygnus, well several
>weeks ago I asked something that NOBODY answered clearly.
>
>It was this simple:
>I have a program under unix, under GPL license, etc...
>No problem there.
>
>Then I decided to make some changes so it compiles under cygwin and
>here is the problem...  I make my binaries available to the public but:
>Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???  It seems i have to
>include the source code of the library, but that would make a 20 megas
>cygwin source (more than 20 times the actual program).
>
>Can someone help?  I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
>program.  Maybe I am wrong, but that is why I asked and nobody seems to
>know the answer.

You do not have to include the sources.  You just have to be prepared to
make the sources available to someone via the same mechanism that you
distributed your program.

That means that if you distribute the program on diskette you have to be
prepared to provide the sources on diskette.  If you distributed the
sources on the web, you have to be able to make the sources available
via the web.

One thing that I don't believe anyone has mentioned (and I hope that DJ
will correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can charge a processing fee
for providing the sources.  That means that if you provide your program
to someone who would now like to get the cygwin sources you can say "Ok.
There will be a $50 handling charge.  Please send it to me so that I can
process your request.  Or, you can go to
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/ and get the sources from there for
free."

Check out http://www.gnu.org/ to see what they charge for processing
fees.

-chris

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: licensing NOT clear for me

[Micke Hovmöller]

> From: Bernard Dautrevaux [ mailto:DAUTREVAUX@microprocess.com ]
> > From: DJ Delorie [ mailto:dj@delorie.com ]
> > Still, you'd have to generate a new signed file every day 
> (to get the
> > full 3-year term) and the user can always download a new one to
> > illegally extend their term.
> > 
> 
> Or just put a date till which you are ready to provide the source that
> is 4 years after the date of the PGP-signed message then 
> re-generate it
> each year; not such a hard thing to do....

No, maybe not. But doesn't the fact that we even discuss this prove
beyond any doubt that providing free non-profit software to others as a
service is ***WAY*** too complicated at the moment?

I understand the objectives of the GPL, but in practice this is NOT a
good way to solve the problen, IMHO.

If I write a piece of code and give it away to others under the
condition that they in turn keep giving it away for free, why should I
have any more hassle with that?

/Micke

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Earnie Boyd]

I'm going to ask that any response to this also include the list. 
There are many (more than one is many) who feel the same way and they
shouldn't have to ask it again.



---Daniel Karipides <karipid@mae.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> 
> Let me make this very clear at the top of this email: PLEASE do not
> reply to this on the list.  This is a request for information; please
> email me privately at: dpk2@cornell.edu.  Thanks.
> 
> In my lurking on GNU relared newsgroups and mailing lists, I've
> witnessed many discussions / arguments about the GPL.  Through these
> discussion, I feel that I have gained some understanding of how the
> GPL works.  What I don't understand is the following:
> 
> It often seems that, through very accurate and seemingly well-founded
> legal arguments, there are cases where the GPL discourages the
> writting and distribution of free software.  I am not trying to say
> the arguments as presented are ill-formed or not legal in some sense.
> I am simply saying that explanation of how the GPL works has a tone
> that is rather harsh.  Moreover, there is an implicit message in the
> explanations that says "If it is difficult to follow the GPL, tough.
> If you can't follow the GPL to the letter, it is a good thing that
> your code can't be legally distributed."
> 
> For an example of this, take a simple program written to run under
> cygwin.  Suppose the author want to distribute the binaries of this
> code, the source code itself and cygwin.dll.  But, faced with the
> prospect of somehow giving written, signed promises to distribute the
> entire source code of cygwin via the same means (probably a web site),
> the author decides not to distribute the code.  Or, more
> realistically, not to write it in the first place.  I say this because
> given my current understanding of how the GPL interacts with the
> cygwin enviornment, I would never spend the time to write a cygwin
> program and try to distribute it under the GPL.  I think this is a bad
> thing, as I would hope that more people choose to write free software,
> not less.
> 
> So I'm looking for an explanation as to why the GPL being structured
> in this way is a good thing.  Or why my understanding is incorrect.
> Please email me privately (a pointer to a already published web
> explanation would be fine.)  Do not clutter the list with responses,
> as Chris has already asked for this discussion to die.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> -Dan
> ----
> dpk2@cornell.edu
> -----
> karipid@mae.cornell.edu
> 
> "Life's too short for worrying. Yes, that's what worries me. " 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: licensing NOT clear for me

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1633 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [ mailto:dj@delorie.com ]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 7:22 PM
> To: cgf@cygnus.com
> Cc: creative1@bigfoot.com; cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: licensing NOT clear for me
> 
> 
> 
> > From the above, it seems to me that b) would be feasible for source
> > distributions on the web, unless "written offer" means 
> something more
> > esoteric than actually including those words in a README.
> 
> According to RMS, "written" means paper, with a date and signature (or
> other identifying mark).  A computer file isn't legally binding
> because it can easily be modified.  Personally, I would think a
> PGP-signed text file would be sufficient if it included the date
> inside the message, assuming you can verify the signature in the
> future (you can always generate a new PGP key and toss the old one).
> 
> Still, you'd have to generate a new signed file every day (to get the
> full 3-year term) and the user can always download a new one to
> illegally extend their term.
> 

Or just put a date till which you are ready to provide the source that
is 4 years after the date of the PGP-signed message then re-generate it
each year; not such a hard thing to do....

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Charles Wilson]

DJ Delorie wrote:

> > Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
> > newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
> > available of toplevel?
>
> toplevel is a couple of scripts and the top-level Makefile and such.
> Basically, all the sources that weren't in a subdirectory when I broke
> them up.  All these modules are in cygwin-b20/src-by-top-dir on the
> ftp sites.

Here is the index.txt file from
ftp://belgarion.resnet.gatech.edu/pub/cygwin/B20/cygwin-sources/

*****************
This directory contains the minimum cygwin sourcecode to comply with the
GPL. Since executables with dll's are considered a single program, and
since the cygwin dll is under the GPL, if I want to distribute compiled
applications that use the cygwin dll, I am required to place my
application under the GPL. In order to comply with this, not only do I
have to provide the sources to my application, but also I must provide
the sources for the cygwin dll that I used.

Now, I don't really expect anyone to download this stuff - it's much
easier to get the full sources for the entire cygwin *environment*
directly from Cygnus ( http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin ) rather than
just the sources for the cygwin dll and its immediate dependencies which
I provide here. In addition, if you go to the Cygnus website, you can get
a nicely packaged, precompiled version of the entire cygwin
*environment*, which includes lots of nice extras.

index.txt                this file
file_select.diff         Sergey Okhapkin's patch(1) for coolview winsup
dll
mixed-case.diff          Sergey Okhapkin's patch(2) for coolview winsup
dll
libiberty.tar.bz2        original cygwin sourcecode
newlib.tar.bz2           original cygwin sourcecode
toplevel.tar.bz2         original cygwin sourcecode
winsup.tar.bz2           original cygwin sourcecode
winsup-coolview.tar.bz2  winsup sources, modified using Sergey's patches
*****************

Since I built the binaries on my ftp server using the coolview
(post-20.1) dll, does this directory satisfy the requirements of the GPL
wrt cygwin-based programs (provided I also supply the source for the
specific programs, of course) ?

--Chuck



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> I'm going to ask that any response to this also include the list. 

OK.

My opinion: The GPL protects software and users, not programmers.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Earnie Boyd]

---DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
--8<--
> 
> You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
> about 4Mb.
> 
--8<--

Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
available of toplevel?

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> Since I built the binaries on my ftp server using the coolview
> (post-20.1) dll, does this directory satisfy the requirements of the
> GPL wrt cygwin-based programs (provided I also supply the source for
> the specific programs, of course) ?

If those are the sources that built the coolview dll, yes, but you
must copy them to your ftp server (or wherever you're uploading your
binaries to).

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Daniel Karipides]

Let me make this very clear at the top of this email: PLEASE do not
reply to this on the list.  This is a request for information; please
email me privately at: dpk2@cornell.edu.  Thanks.

In my lurking on GNU relared newsgroups and mailing lists, I've
witnessed many discussions / arguments about the GPL.  Through these
discussion, I feel that I have gained some understanding of how the
GPL works.  What I don't understand is the following:

It often seems that, through very accurate and seemingly well-founded
legal arguments, there are cases where the GPL discourages the
writting and distribution of free software.  I am not trying to say
the arguments as presented are ill-formed or not legal in some sense.
I am simply saying that explanation of how the GPL works has a tone
that is rather harsh.  Moreover, there is an implicit message in the
explanations that says "If it is difficult to follow the GPL, tough.
If you can't follow the GPL to the letter, it is a good thing that
your code can't be legally distributed."

For an example of this, take a simple program written to run under
cygwin.  Suppose the author want to distribute the binaries of this
code, the source code itself and cygwin.dll.  But, faced with the
prospect of somehow giving written, signed promises to distribute the
entire source code of cygwin via the same means (probably a web site),
the author decides not to distribute the code.  Or, more
realistically, not to write it in the first place.  I say this because
given my current understanding of how the GPL interacts with the
cygwin enviornment, I would never spend the time to write a cygwin
program and try to distribute it under the GPL.  I think this is a bad
thing, as I would hope that more people choose to write free software,
not less.

So I'm looking for an explanation as to why the GPL being structured
in this way is a good thing.  Or why my understanding is incorrect.
Please email me privately (a pointer to a already published web
explanation would be fine.)  Do not clutter the list with responses,
as Chris has already asked for this discussion to die.

Thanks in advance,

-Dan
----
dpk2@cornell.edu
-----
karipid@mae.cornell.edu

"Life's too short for worrying. Yes, that's what worries me. " 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 10:44:34AM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>---DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
>--8<--
>> 
>> You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
>> about 4Mb.
>> 
>--8<--
>
>Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
>newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
>available of toplevel?

As I've mentioned previously, check out the snapshots directory.
We regularly distribute the tarball containing the pieces that you
need.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
> newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
> available of toplevel?

toplevel is a couple of scripts and the top-level Makefile and such.
Basically, all the sources that weren't in a subdirectory when I broke
them up.  All these modules are in cygwin-b20/src-by-top-dir on the
ftp sites.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: licensing NOT clear for me

[Micke Hovmöller]

I am asking the exact same thing for an application that I ported from
unix. Free, sources available and everything included, of cource, and I
just want to pass along cygwin1.dll and sh.exe. What need I do to make
that legal?

/Micke

> -----Original Message-----
> From: creative1 [ mailto:creative1@bigfoot.com ]
> Sent: den 18 mars 1999 16:53
> To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: licensing NOT clear for me
> 
> 
> Hi there!
> 
> I am reading all these posts about the license on cygnus, well
> several weeks ago I asked something that NOBODY
> answered clearly.
> 
> It was this simple:
> I have a program under unix, under GPL license, etc...
> No problem there.
> Then I decided to make some changes so it compiles
> under cygwin and here is the problem...
> I make my binaries available to the public but:
> Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???
> It seems i have to include the source code of the
> library, but that would make a 20 megas cygwin
> source (more than 20 times the actual program).
> 
> Can someone help?
> I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
> program. Maybe I am wrong, but that is why
> I asked and nobody seems to know the answer.
> 
> I feel like breaking the law and give the phreaking
> .dll to everyone! I know, but you know how
> it feels to ask this question 5 times and do NOT
> receive an answer? and sorry but the .txt doesn't
> help much with my english.
> 
> help would be really appreciated.
> 
> Joaquin Grech
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> !     C r e a t i v i t y     M u s t    S u r v i v e        !
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> !  Fido: 2:341/19.67                 Euronet: 25:928/100.67   !
> !  Internet: creative1@bigfoot.com                            !
> !  Http://surf.to/creative                  Ya me direis :)   !
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> Since I built the binaries on my ftp server using the coolview
> (post-20.1) dll, does this directory satisfy the requirements of the
> GPL wrt cygwin-based programs (provided I also supply the source for
> the specific programs, of course) ?

If those are the sources that built the coolview dll, yes, but you
must copy them to your ftp server (or wherever you're uploading your
binaries to).

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Charles Wilson]

DJ Delorie wrote:

> > Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
> > newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
> > available of toplevel?
>
> toplevel is a couple of scripts and the top-level Makefile and such.
> Basically, all the sources that weren't in a subdirectory when I broke
> them up.  All these modules are in cygwin-b20/src-by-top-dir on the
> ftp sites.

Here is the index.txt file from
ftp://belgarion.resnet.gatech.edu/pub/cygwin/B20/cygwin-sources/

*****************
This directory contains the minimum cygwin sourcecode to comply with the
GPL. Since executables with dll's are considered a single program, and
since the cygwin dll is under the GPL, if I want to distribute compiled
applications that use the cygwin dll, I am required to place my
application under the GPL. In order to comply with this, not only do I
have to provide the sources to my application, but also I must provide
the sources for the cygwin dll that I used.

Now, I don't really expect anyone to download this stuff - it's much
easier to get the full sources for the entire cygwin *environment*
directly from Cygnus ( http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin ) rather than
just the sources for the cygwin dll and its immediate dependencies which
I provide here. In addition, if you go to the Cygnus website, you can get
a nicely packaged, precompiled version of the entire cygwin
*environment*, which includes lots of nice extras.

index.txt                this file
file_select.diff         Sergey Okhapkin's patch(1) for coolview winsup
dll
mixed-case.diff          Sergey Okhapkin's patch(2) for coolview winsup
dll
libiberty.tar.bz2        original cygwin sourcecode
newlib.tar.bz2           original cygwin sourcecode
toplevel.tar.bz2         original cygwin sourcecode
winsup.tar.bz2           original cygwin sourcecode
winsup-coolview.tar.bz2  winsup sources, modified using Sergey's patches
*****************

Since I built the binaries on my ftp server using the coolview
(post-20.1) dll, does this directory satisfy the requirements of the GPL
wrt cygwin-based programs (provided I also supply the source for the
specific programs, of course) ?

--Chuck



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Chris Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 10:44:34AM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>---DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
>--8<--
>> 
>> You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
>> about 4Mb.
>> 
>--8<--
>
>Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
>newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
>available of toplevel?

As I've mentioned previously, check out the snapshots directory.
We regularly distribute the tarball containing the pieces that you
need.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
> newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
> available of toplevel?

toplevel is a couple of scripts and the top-level Makefile and such.
Basically, all the sources that weren't in a subdirectory when I broke
them up.  All these modules are in cygwin-b20/src-by-top-dir on the
ftp sites.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Earnie Boyd]

---DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
--8<--
> 
> You'd need winsup, newlib, libiberty, and toplevel.  It tar.gz's to
> about 4Mb.
> 
--8<--

Finally, a definition of what is needed!!  I've heard of winsup,
newlib and libiberty; but, what is toplevel?  Is there a download
available of toplevel?

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: licensing NOT clear for me

[Micke Hovmöller]

> From: Bernard Dautrevaux [ mailto:DAUTREVAUX@microprocess.com ]
> > From: DJ Delorie [ mailto:dj@delorie.com ]
> > Still, you'd have to generate a new signed file every day 
> (to get the
> > full 3-year term) and the user can always download a new one to
> > illegally extend their term.
> > 
> 
> Or just put a date till which you are ready to provide the source that
> is 4 years after the date of the PGP-signed message then 
> re-generate it
> each year; not such a hard thing to do....

No, maybe not. But doesn't the fact that we even discuss this prove
beyond any doubt that providing free non-profit software to others as a
service is ***WAY*** too complicated at the moment?

I understand the objectives of the GPL, but in practice this is NOT a
good way to solve the problen, IMHO.

If I write a piece of code and give it away to others under the
condition that they in turn keep giving it away for free, why should I
have any more hassle with that?

/Micke

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: licensing NOT clear for me

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1632 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [ mailto:dj@delorie.com ]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 7:22 PM
> To: cgf@cygnus.com
> Cc: creative1@bigfoot.com; cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: licensing NOT clear for me
> 
> 
> 
> > From the above, it seems to me that b) would be feasible for source
> > distributions on the web, unless "written offer" means 
> something more
> > esoteric than actually including those words in a README.
> 
> According to RMS, "written" means paper, with a date and signature (or
> other identifying mark).  A computer file isn't legally binding
> because it can easily be modified.  Personally, I would think a
> PGP-signed text file would be sufficient if it included the date
> inside the message, assuming you can verify the signature in the
> future (you can always generate a new PGP key and toss the old one).
> 
> Still, you'd have to generate a new signed file every day (to get the
> full 3-year term) and the user can always download a new one to
> illegally extend their term.
> 

Or just put a date till which you are ready to provide the source that
is 4 years after the date of the PGP-signed message then re-generate it
each year; not such a hard thing to do....

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[DJ Delorie]

> I'm going to ask that any response to this also include the list. 

OK.

My opinion: The GPL protects software and users, not programmers.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Earnie Boyd]

I'm going to ask that any response to this also include the list. 
There are many (more than one is many) who feel the same way and they
shouldn't have to ask it again.



---Daniel Karipides <karipid@mae.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> 
> Let me make this very clear at the top of this email: PLEASE do not
> reply to this on the list.  This is a request for information; please
> email me privately at: dpk2@cornell.edu.  Thanks.
> 
> In my lurking on GNU relared newsgroups and mailing lists, I've
> witnessed many discussions / arguments about the GPL.  Through these
> discussion, I feel that I have gained some understanding of how the
> GPL works.  What I don't understand is the following:
> 
> It often seems that, through very accurate and seemingly well-founded
> legal arguments, there are cases where the GPL discourages the
> writting and distribution of free software.  I am not trying to say
> the arguments as presented are ill-formed or not legal in some sense.
> I am simply saying that explanation of how the GPL works has a tone
> that is rather harsh.  Moreover, there is an implicit message in the
> explanations that says "If it is difficult to follow the GPL, tough.
> If you can't follow the GPL to the letter, it is a good thing that
> your code can't be legally distributed."
> 
> For an example of this, take a simple program written to run under
> cygwin.  Suppose the author want to distribute the binaries of this
> code, the source code itself and cygwin.dll.  But, faced with the
> prospect of somehow giving written, signed promises to distribute the
> entire source code of cygwin via the same means (probably a web site),
> the author decides not to distribute the code.  Or, more
> realistically, not to write it in the first place.  I say this because
> given my current understanding of how the GPL interacts with the
> cygwin enviornment, I would never spend the time to write a cygwin
> program and try to distribute it under the GPL.  I think this is a bad
> thing, as I would hope that more people choose to write free software,
> not less.
> 
> So I'm looking for an explanation as to why the GPL being structured
> in this way is a good thing.  Or why my understanding is incorrect.
> Please email me privately (a pointer to a already published web
> explanation would be fine.)  Do not clutter the list with responses,
> as Chris has already asked for this discussion to die.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> -Dan
> ----
> dpk2@cornell.edu
> -----
> karipid@mae.cornell.edu
> 
> "Life's too short for worrying. Yes, that's what worries me. " 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: licensing NOT clear for me

[Daniel Karipides]

Let me make this very clear at the top of this email: PLEASE do not
reply to this on the list.  This is a request for information; please
email me privately at: dpk2@cornell.edu.  Thanks.

In my lurking on GNU relared newsgroups and mailing lists, I've
witnessed many discussions / arguments about the GPL.  Through these
discussion, I feel that I have gained some understanding of how the
GPL works.  What I don't understand is the following:

It often seems that, through very accurate and seemingly well-founded
legal arguments, there are cases where the GPL discourages the
writting and distribution of free software.  I am not trying to say
the arguments as presented are ill-formed or not legal in some sense.
I am simply saying that explanation of how the GPL works has a tone
that is rather harsh.  Moreover, there is an implicit message in the
explanations that says "If it is difficult to follow the GPL, tough.
If you can't follow the GPL to the letter, it is a good thing that
your code can't be legally distributed."

For an example of this, take a simple program written to run under
cygwin.  Suppose the author want to distribute the binaries of this
code, the source code itself and cygwin.dll.  But, faced with the
prospect of somehow giving written, signed promises to distribute the
entire source code of cygwin via the same means (probably a web site),
the author decides not to distribute the code.  Or, more
realistically, not to write it in the first place.  I say this because
given my current understanding of how the GPL interacts with the
cygwin enviornment, I would never spend the time to write a cygwin
program and try to distribute it under the GPL.  I think this is a bad
thing, as I would hope that more people choose to write free software,
not less.

So I'm looking for an explanation as to why the GPL being structured
in this way is a good thing.  Or why my understanding is incorrect.
Please email me privately (a pointer to a already published web
explanation would be fine.)  Do not clutter the list with responses,
as Chris has already asked for this discussion to die.

Thanks in advance,

-Dan
----
dpk2@cornell.edu
-----
karipid@mae.cornell.edu

"Life's too short for worrying. Yes, that's what worries me. " 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

RE: licensing NOT clear for me

[Micke Hovmöller]

I am asking the exact same thing for an application that I ported from
unix. Free, sources available and everything included, of cource, and I
just want to pass along cygwin1.dll and sh.exe. What need I do to make
that legal?

/Micke

> -----Original Message-----
> From: creative1 [ mailto:creative1@bigfoot.com ]
> Sent: den 18 mars 1999 16:53
> To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: licensing NOT clear for me
> 
> 
> Hi there!
> 
> I am reading all these posts about the license on cygnus, well
> several weeks ago I asked something that NOBODY
> answered clearly.
> 
> It was this simple:
> I have a program under unix, under GPL license, etc...
> No problem there.
> Then I decided to make some changes so it compiles
> under cygwin and here is the problem...
> I make my binaries available to the public but:
> Can I include the cygwin1.dll on the .zip file???
> It seems i have to include the source code of the
> library, but that would make a 20 megas cygwin
> source (more than 20 times the actual program).
> 
> Can someone help?
> I consider stupid to include 20 megas for a simple
> program. Maybe I am wrong, but that is why
> I asked and nobody seems to know the answer.
> 
> I feel like breaking the law and give the phreaking
> .dll to everyone! I know, but you know how
> it feels to ask this question 5 times and do NOT
> receive an answer? and sorry but the .txt doesn't
> help much with my english.
> 
> help would be really appreciated.
> 
> Joaquin Grech
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> !     C r e a t i v i t y     M u s t    S u r v i v e        !
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> !  Fido: 2:341/19.67                 Euronet: 25:928/100.67   !
> !  Internet: creative1@bigfoot.com                            !
> !  Http://surf.to/creative                  Ya me direis :)   !
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com