Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[David Robinow]

--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 02:01:40PM -0400, Larry Hall
> (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>> ...
>> If the discussion becomes one of various
>>people offering their opinion of what the GPL means
>> and what it affects, it seems beneficial to move
>> that branch of the discussion to a
>> more appropriate venue.
> 
> I agree.  The discussion is getting pretty
> philosophical, which, IMO, is a
> sure sign that it is getting off-topic for this
> mailing list.
 For those who are new to this sort of controversy,
the appropriate venue is the newsgroup
gnu.misc.discuss.  If you don't have newsgroup
access, try http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Chris Faylor]

On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 11:52:58AM -0700, David Robinow wrote:
>
>
>--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 02:01:40PM -0400, Larry Hall
>> (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>>> ...
>>> If the discussion becomes one of various
>>>people offering their opinion of what the GPL means
>>> and what it affects, it seems beneficial to move
>>> that branch of the discussion to a
>>> more appropriate venue.
>> 
>> I agree.  The discussion is getting pretty
>> philosophical, which, IMO, is a
>> sure sign that it is getting off-topic for this
>> mailing list.
>
>For those who are new to this sort of controversy,
>the appropriate venue is the newsgroup
>gnu.misc.discuss.  If you don't have newsgroup
>access, try http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml

Thanks, David.  I would appreciate it if people would move this
discussion there and change the "subject" appropriately.

cgf

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

RE: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Robinow [ mailto:drobinow@yahoo.com ]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 6:19 PM
> To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: Things you can do with Cygwin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > And this is the area of disagreement.  I feel that
> > ...
> > IANAL.  But this is my opinion.
>  Is there any reason why a Cygwin user should care
> what your opinion is?
> 

Just an opinion is uninteresting, but a motivated one IS, at least for me.
But obviously that is MY opinion, and this one does not need to be
motivated: you just ask for it yourself :-)

Regards,

	Bernard

--------------------------------------------
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: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Chris Faylor]

On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 02:01:40PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 01:43 PM 5/3/00, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>--- "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall@rfk.com> wrote:
>>-8<-
>>>Perhaps its worthwhile, if people want to discuss the GPL and its
>>>details, and offer their opinions on its interpretation, that this
>>>discussion move to a forum that discusses such things.  I'm not sure
>>>that this list's bandwidth is best consumed by those offering their
>>>interpretation of the GPL when there are other places where such things
>>>are addressed.  Just a thought...
>>>
>>
>>I would agree; however, this is a discussion not only of the GPL but
>>how the GPL affects CYGWIN and my program that uses it.  This then is
>>beneficial to this list.
>
>OK, I stand corrected.  If this discussion stays on target and
>addresses how the GPL version of CYGWIN affects someone's program and
>that differs from how the GPL would affect that program if it used some
>other GPLed library, then I would agree that continued discussion
>should remain on this list.  If the discussion becomes one of various
>people offering their opinion of what the GPL means and what it
>affects, it seems beneficial to move that branch of the discussion to a
>more appropriate venue.

I agree.  The discussion is getting pretty philosophical, which, IMO, is a
sure sign that it is getting off-topic for this mailing list.

cgf


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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 01:43 PM 5/3/00, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall@rfk.com> wrote:
>-8<-
> > 
> > Perhaps its worthwhile, if people want to discuss the GPL and its details,
> > and offer their opinions on its interpretation, that this discussion move
> > to a forum that discusses such things.  I'm not sure that this list's 
> > bandwidth is best consumed by those offering their interpretation of the GPL
> > when there are other places where such things are addressed.  Just a 
> > thought...
> > 
>
>I would agree; however, this is a discussion not only of the GPL but how the
>GPL affects CYGWIN and my program that uses it.  This then is beneficial to
>this list.
>



OK, I stand corrected.  If this discussion stays on target and addresses how
the GPL version of CYGWIN affects someone's program and that differs from 
how the GPL would affect that program if it used some other GPLed library,
then I would agree that continued discussion should remain on this list.  If
the discussion becomes one of various people offering their opinion of what
the GPL means and what it affects, it seems beneficial to move that 
branch of the discussion to a more appropriate venue.




Larry



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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Earnie Boyd]

--- "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall@rfk.com> wrote:
-8<-
> 
> Perhaps its worthwhile, if people want to discuss the GPL and its details,
> and offer their opinions on its interpretation, that this discussion move
> to a forum that discusses such things.  I'm not sure that this list's 
> bandwidth is best consumed by those offering their interpretation of the GPL
> when there are other places where such things are addressed.  Just a 
> thought...
> 

I would agree; however, this is a discussion not only of the GPL but how the
GPL affects CYGWIN and my program that uses it.  This then is beneficial to
this list.


=====
---
   Earnie Boyd: < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >
            __Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__
Cygwin Newbies: < http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html >
           __Minimalist GNU for Windows__
  Mingw32 List: < http://www.egroups.com/group/mingw32/ >
    Mingw Home: < http://www.mingw.org/ >

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/


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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> I feel that since a dynamically linked chunk of code only specifies
> the interface, and not the internals, that the internals are not
> parts of the same work.

First off, the "dynamically linked chunk of code" *is* the whole DLL.
The DLL is real.  The import library is real.  The way the program and
dll interact is real.  The "api" is only a concept; only its
implementation is real.  You can't link a concept into your program.
You can only link an implementation of the concept into your program,
and when you do, you must obey the license terms of the
implementation, or hope that the court sides with you when you try to
defend your "fair use" of it.

Second, the definition of "work" does not mean "executable" or
"program", it means "work".  That word is used on purpose, because it
conveys the intentions and actions of the programmer in a legally
clear way (one would hope).  If two independent modules interact via a
published, well-known interface, yet it is obvious that the developer
intended those two specific modules to be used only together, it's
still one work.

Third, it's pointless to argue philisophical differences when, by the
time those differences are relevent, you'd be in court already anyway.
The court does what it does regardless of your beliefs.  We're wasting
our time trying to explore the gray areas of copyright law.  Just stay
away from them.  If you can't, hire a lawyer and take it to court,
because that's the only way you'll know for sure what the answer is.

> In particular it is certainly possible to have multiple hunks of
> code with the same name and effectively the same interface (minor
> variations may exist) because that is the source of windows "dll
> hell".  If there can be multiple versions that do very different
> things, after the manner of things returned by a factory pattern,
> then I don't see them as being the same work at all.  And since the
> caller doesn't know which of the different versions it will get, it
> can't be a part of the same work either.

All true, but irrelevent.  I *could* write a new version of Windows
NT, but that doesn't mean it exists *now*.  When a programmer creates
a work, it's either one work, or more than one work.  It doesn't
matter what "could" happen, only what *did* happen, and why.

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[David Robinow]

--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And this is the area of disagreement.  I feel that
> ...
> IANAL.  But this is my opinion.
 Is there any reason why a Cygwin user should care
what your opinion is?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 11:30 AM 5/3/00, Charles Hixson wrote:
>DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > ...(snip)
> > > The static linking case is clear.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > Dynamic linking is not so clear, it is likely covered by the GPL but
> > > who knows for sure.
> >
> > My claim is that the fact that it's dynamically linked is irrelevent;
> > all that is relevent is whether there are two independent works
> > involved, or only one.
>
>... (snip)
>
>And this is the area of disagreement.  I feel that since a dynamically
>linked chunk of code only specifies the interface, and not the internals,
>that the internals are not parts of the same work.  In particular it is
>certainly possible to have multiple hunks of code with the same name and
>effectively the same interface (minor variations may exist) because that
>is the source of windows "dll hell".  If there can be multiple versions
>that do very different things, after the manner of things returned by a
>factory pattern, then I don't see them as being the same work at all.  And
>since the caller doesn't know which of the different versions it will get,
>it can't be a part of the same work either.
>
>IANAL.  But this is my opinion.
>



Perhaps its worthwhile, if people want to discuss the GPL and its details,
and offer their opinions on its interpretation, that this discussion move
to a forum that discusses such things.  I'm not sure that this list's 
bandwidth is best consumed by those offering their interpretation of the GPL
when there are other places where such things are addressed.  Just a 
thought...



Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX
                                        (508) 560-1285 - cell phone



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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Charles Hixson]

DJ Delorie wrote:

> ...(snip)
> > The static linking case is clear.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Dynamic linking is not so clear, it is likely covered by the GPL but
> > who knows for sure.
>
> My claim is that the fact that it's dynamically linked is irrelevent;
> all that is relevent is whether there are two independent works
> involved, or only one.

... (snip)

And this is the area of disagreement.  I feel that since a dynamically
linked chunk of code only specifies the interface, and not the internals,
that the internals are not parts of the same work.  In particular it is
certainly possible to have multiple hunks of code with the same name and
effectively the same interface (minor variations may exist) because that
is the source of windows "dll hell".  If there can be multiple versions
that do very different things, after the manner of things returned by a
factory pattern, then I don't see them as being the same work at all.  And
since the caller doesn't know which of the different versions it will get,
it can't be a part of the same work either.

IANAL.  But this is my opinion.



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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[David Lane]

On Wed, 3 May 2000, 13mb80000-HallM(10053584)37x10 wrote:

> 
> > > Does that mean that the two pieces are now separate works?
> > >
> > > So, I think that there must be some other criteria for separating works
> > > other than the existance of alternative implementations and standard
> > > protocols.  I can't say quite what the criteria should be, though...
> > 
> > It wouldn't matter.  You can't retroactively un-violate the GPL.  The
> > first time you distributed the two programs without full source, you
> > violate the GPL.  *If* later they become two works, then *further*
> > distribution would be OK.
> > 
> > As for the criteria, it's simple.  A court would decide.  Otherwise,
> > it's really rather pointless to try to find such borderline cases,
> > unless you *like* going to court just to split hairs.  If you don't
> > know where that fine line is, just stay clear of it.
> 
> I am not considering the GPL implications yet, still thinking about the
> meaning of "a work".  I do realize that this has implications as to how
> the GPL gets applied, though.  Still, it somehow seems pecular if I write
> some code and the number of "works" that I have created can legally
> change later on, well after I have written the last line and shipped
> it off.
> 
> In the original example, creating an extension to a GPL-ed X-server (a
> Y server) and a client that requires this extension, you argued that
> they collectively are a single work.  But, if somebody writes another
> Y server, then suddenly the original pieces are two works.  Even if
> the second Y server is implemented 10 years after the first?  Does it
> matter how well distributed the 2nd implementation is?  Could you just
> start out with 10Mb of all zeros and work through each bit pattern possible,
> assuming that somewhere along the way an alternate implementation is
> created.  If so, then do you have to actually do that work, or could you
> just speculate that such could be created?

Sometimes it is clear from the way in which the works were created that
the intention is that there are two separate works.  Just to use the X
extension analogy, if you were to create a protocol for the extention, and
document that (perhaps publicly), then create a server implementation as a
reference in a GPL X server, then a client implementation in another
(perhaps new for this purpose) GPL program which is released & distributed
separately, you would have two separate works at least as regards the
client and server.  The key points are that, given the separate existence
of the documentation on the extension protocol, the reference implentation
in the server and the client which uses the protocol can be developed
independently and do not strictly depend one upon the other, but rather
both depend on the protocol specification.

This is one reason I dislike having licensed code put into protocol
specifications.  Much better IMHO to have a protocol, and then separately
release a reference implementation.

> It seems that the number of works created should be intrinsic to the act of
> creating them, and not affected by subsequent and possibly unrelated
> activity.
> 
> marcus



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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> I am not considering the GPL implications yet, still thinking about the
> meaning of "a work".

If I paint a painting, and later on someone cuts in in quarters and
sells them to four people, did I really paint four paintings?

Your question is very philisophical, which means that not only do I
not have a clear answer to it, but there may not be a "clear" answer
to it, only vague answers and clear effects of the situation.  For
example, if it went to court, it may not matter whether it's now one
work or two, they may decide one way or another without resolving that
actual issue.

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[13mb80000-HallM(10053584)37x10]

> > Does that mean that the two pieces are now separate works?
> >
> > So, I think that there must be some other criteria for separating works
> > other than the existance of alternative implementations and standard
> > protocols.  I can't say quite what the criteria should be, though...
> 
> It wouldn't matter.  You can't retroactively un-violate the GPL.  The
> first time you distributed the two programs without full source, you
> violate the GPL.  *If* later they become two works, then *further*
> distribution would be OK.
> 
> As for the criteria, it's simple.  A court would decide.  Otherwise,
> it's really rather pointless to try to find such borderline cases,
> unless you *like* going to court just to split hairs.  If you don't
> know where that fine line is, just stay clear of it.

I am not considering the GPL implications yet, still thinking about the
meaning of "a work".  I do realize that this has implications as to how
the GPL gets applied, though.  Still, it somehow seems pecular if I write
some code and the number of "works" that I have created can legally
change later on, well after I have written the last line and shipped
it off.

In the original example, creating an extension to a GPL-ed X-server (a
Y server) and a client that requires this extension, you argued that
they collectively are a single work.  But, if somebody writes another
Y server, then suddenly the original pieces are two works.  Even if
the second Y server is implemented 10 years after the first?  Does it
matter how well distributed the 2nd implementation is?  Could you just
start out with 10Mb of all zeros and work through each bit pattern possible,
assuming that somewhere along the way an alternate implementation is
created.  If so, then do you have to actually do that work, or could you
just speculate that such could be created?

It seems that the number of works created should be intrinsic to the act of
creating them, and not affected by subsequent and possibly unrelated
activity.

marcus

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> Does that mean that the two pieces are now separate works?
>
> So, I think that there must be some other criteria for separating works
> other than the existance of alternative implementations and standard
> protocols.  I can't say quite what the criteria should be, though...

It wouldn't matter.  You can't retroactively un-violate the GPL.  The
first time you distributed the two programs without full source, you
violate the GPL.  *If* later they become two works, then *further*
distribution would be OK.

As for the criteria, it's simple.  A court would decide.  Otherwise,
it's really rather pointless to try to find such borderline cases,
unless you *like* going to court just to split hairs.  If you don't
know where that fine line is, just stay clear of it.

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[13mb80000-HallM(10053584)37x10]

> > If that were the case, then a GPL'ed X-server would simply not be
> > suitable for running anything but GPL code. Cygwin/XFree is one such
> > server.
> 
> No, because they'd be two separate works.  If you modified the X
> server to use a non-standard protocol, and wrote a GPL'd program that
> required that non-standard protocol, then it would be one work.  But
> since a GPL'd program that uses the standard X protocol could use your
> X server, or any other X server, they would be separate works and the
> GPL on the application would not effect the X server.

I have a problem with this logic, though.

Suppose that the non-standard protocol of the modified X server was
subsequently adopted as a new standard and multiple implementations
were created so that then the original program that requires the
originally non-standard (but now standard) protocol could work with
several different implementations of the X server (now a Y server?).
Does that mean that the two pieces are now separate works?  But the
coding was completed before the new standard was accepted and the
other implementations were created, so what was originally one work
now becomes two works because of independent invention by other people
and no change at all of the original code.  This doesn't seem to be
right, so it would seem that the original assertion was flawed.

So, I think that there must be some other criteria for separating works
other than the existance of alternative implementations and standard
protocols.  I can't say quite what the criteria should be, though...

marcus hall

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> Yes, but I think there is different works as soon as these can be
> used independently; obviously a proprietary work that can be used on
> CYGWIN, Linux, HPux, Solaris, etc is NOT a derived work of CYGWIN
> but a separate work (especially if it was FIRST available on other
> OSes, then ported on CYGWIN).

Once it's compiled with Cygwin, it's a derived work, because the
binaries are not independent.  If you could run the same *binary* on
Linux, Solaris, HPUX, and Cygwin, that would be different.  Or, if you
had a binary that would run just fine without cygwin1.dll but happened
to use it if it was there, that might be independent.  But a binary
that relies on cygwin1 is not independent.

Plus, don't forget that part of cygwin is statically linked into your
program - even if you don't use cygwin1.dll (somehow), you still use
libcygwin.a, and that alone makes it GPL'd.

> In fact CYGWIN on WIN32 may be seen as yet another POSIX-compatible
> OS and it seems difficult to argue that some work that can be used
> on it is not a different work.

No, because *windows* isn't a POSIX-compatible OS, so cygwin is
clearly an added feature on such an OS, especially since you have to
obtain it from a third party, make special provisions for it (relative
to win32 programs), and link it into your program.

The POSIX subsystem doesn't count, because cygwin runs in the win32
subsystem, so cygwin programs have more functionality than posix
subsystem programs.

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

RE: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2268 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [ mailto:dj@delorie.com ]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 10:20 PM
> To: mdejong@cygnus.com
> Cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: Things you can do with Cygwin
> 
> 
> 
> > We need to remember that the GPL has never been tested in court so
> > sitting around declaring what it might mean strikes me as a waste of
> > time.
> 
> Just because the GPL hasn't been to court doesn't mean it never will.
> If it does go to court, would you rather have a full understanding of
> what's going to happen, or would you rather be blindsided?
> 
> The GPL was designed by lawyers, not programmers.  They used the term
> "work" for a reason.  *If* it went to court, the court would decide if
> the software in question was one work, or separate works.  It's my
> understanding that making that kind of decision isn't new to the
> courts, although the GPL would be, and that they would simply decide
> one way or the other based on the evidence and that would be the end
> of it.
> 
> > The static linking case is clear.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > Dynamic linking is not so clear, it is likely covered by the GPL but
> > who knows for sure.
> 
> My claim is that the fact that it's dynamically linked is irrelevent;
> all that is relevent is whether there are two independent works
> involved, or only one.

Yes, but I think there is different works as soon as these can be used
independently; obviously a proprietary work that can be used on CYGWIN,
Linux, HPux, Solaris, etc is NOT a derived work of CYGWIN but a separate
work (especially if it was FIRST available on other OSes, then ported on
CYGWIN).

In fact CYGWIN on WIN32 may be seen as yet another POSIX-compatible OS and
it seems difficult to argue that some work that can be used on it is not a
different work.

Regards,

		Bernard

PS: as usual be careful, IANAL :-)

--------------------------------------------
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: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Suhaib M. Siddiqi]

> > The GPL doesn't talk about programs, it talks about "works".  It
> > doesn't matter how the two parts communicate.  The legal
> > definition of "works", I've been told, is pretty clear, so it would
> > be easy for the court to decide if your tricks were a violation or
> > not, if it ever came down to that.
>
> If that were the case, then a GPL'ed X-server would simply not be
> suitable
> for running anything but GPL code. Cygwin/XFree is one such server.
>

Kendall,

I disagree.  If that is true, then nothing could be compiled by GCC but a
GPL'ed
code, No software, but GPl'ed, should be used on Linux because it contains a
lots of GPL'ed stuff.

Doe not make much sense to me personally.

Suhaib




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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> If that were the case, then a GPL'ed X-server would simply not be
> suitable for running anything but GPL code. Cygwin/XFree is one such
> server.

No, because they'd be two separate works.  If you modified the X
server to use a non-standard protocol, and wrote a GPL'd program that
required that non-standard protocol, then it would be one work.  But
since a GPL'd program that uses the standard X protocol could use your
X server, or any other X server, they would be separate works and the
GPL on the application would not effect the X server.

> No, there is no legal exception clause for this in the Linux kernel
> as far as I can tell. The only thing related to this would be the
> small note at the top of the COPYING file in the Linux kernel
> sources:

That's the exception I was talking about.

> "NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal
> use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived
> work".

See?  The authors of the "library" (the kernel, in this case) are
exercising their right to allow you to use non-GPL'd programs in a
certain way with their code.  As the authors, they have that right.
They are giving up any rights they may have to claim that programs
that interact with the kernel via standard calls are derived works.

> As for libc, it is LGPL.

It's also a shared library, and comes with Linux distributions and its
own sources.  Thus, regardless of what kind of application you sell,
the user still has the right, freedom, and abililty to change their
libc and use it with the application.  That's what the LGPL requires,
and it's automatically handled by the way libc itself is distributed.

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Kendall Bennett]

DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:

> > Then again if you wanted to be more legal, stick the Cygwin stuff 
> > into a server program and talk to it only via RPC or sockets instead 
> > of direct dynamic linking.
> 
> The GPL doesn't talk about programs, it talks about "works".  It
> doesn't matter how the two parts communicate.  The legal
> definition of "works", I've been told, is pretty clear, so it would
> be easy for the court to decide if your tricks were a violation or
> not, if it ever came down to that. 

If that were the case, then a GPL'ed X-server would simply not be suitable 
for running anything but GPL code. Cygwin/XFree is one such server.

> > violate the GPL, but then if that was the case you would never be 
> > able to run proprietry programs under Linux because GNOME is GPL as 
> > is the Linux kernel.
> 
> The linux kernel (or libc, I forget which) has an exception in its
> copyright that specifically allows this.  It's not a side-effect
> of the GPL. 

No, there is no legal exception clause for this in the Linux kernel as far 
as I can tell. The only thing related to this would be the small note at 
the top of the COPYING file in the Linux kernel sources:

"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel 
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of 
the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also 
note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but 
the instance of code that it refers to (the linux kernel) is copyrighted by 
me and others who actually wrote it. 

                     Linus Torvalds"

Somehow I don't see how this can be considered a legal exception at all, 
but then again I am not a lawyer.

As for libc, it is LGPL.

Regards,

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|   SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software!     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett          | Email: KendallB@scitechsoft.com    |
| Director of Engineering  | Phone: (530) 894 8400              |
| SciTech Software, Inc.   | Fax  : (530) 894 9069              |
| 505 Wall Street          | ftp  : ftp.scitechsoft.com         |
| Chico, CA 95928, USA     | www  : http://www.scitechsoft.com  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+


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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> This 'grey area' is I suppose how it is legal for us to link to
> M$oft libraries.

No, it's this clause (in section 3) in the GPL that allows that:

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

The use of Win32 system DLLs clearly falls into this case, since they
*are* the operating system.

> I can not find away to let others enjoy this 'enhanced version' with
> out giving away the sources from which I make my living.

Not much you can do here.  The authors of FlightGear obviously want
their efforts to be used in certain ways, and if you wish to use them
in conflicting ways, you're out of luck.  The same applies for any
other license terms, including proprietary - the author gets to decide
what the terms are, and your only choice is to abide by them, not use
the product, or write your own.

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> We need to remember that the GPL has never been tested in court so
> sitting around declaring what it might mean strikes me as a waste of
> time.

Just because the GPL hasn't been to court doesn't mean it never will.
If it does go to court, would you rather have a full understanding of
what's going to happen, or would you rather be blindsided?

The GPL was designed by lawyers, not programmers.  They used the term
"work" for a reason.  *If* it went to court, the court would decide if
the software in question was one work, or separate works.  It's my
understanding that making that kind of decision isn't new to the
courts, although the GPL would be, and that they would simply decide
one way or the other based on the evidence and that would be the end
of it.

> The static linking case is clear.

Agreed.

> Dynamic linking is not so clear, it is likely covered by the GPL but
> who knows for sure.

My claim is that the fact that it's dynamically linked is irrelevent;
all that is relevent is whether there are two independent works
involved, or only one.

For example, a self-extracing zip file is really two works, but only
one executable.  I believe that it's possible to have two executables
that together form one work.  In that case, regardless of how the two
programs interoperate, the GPL would apply to both as a single unit.

> GPLed Java libs use dynamic linking but do not cause Java programs
> to become GPLed.

Because the Java ABI is a standard, and you could replace one java
implementation with another and get the same results.  Thus, the
combination of "java app + java lib" is not a single work, it is two
works used together.

In addition, a library implementer may choose to specifically allow
programs using that library via dynamic linking to consider themselves
separate works; the library author may choose to allow that, but the
application author may not (for the library).

> Talking to a GPLed program over a socket does not have anything to
> do with the GPL.

Agreed.  What matters is whether the two programs doing the talking
are one work, or two.  If they are one work, the GPL on one applies to
the other.  If not, they don't.

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

RE: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Norman Vine]

DJ Delorie writes:
>
>> I would venture that legally you could link against a propriatary
>> DLL that you distributed separately ( and perhaps sold )
>> and still use Cygwin for the rest of the application.
>
>This is a grey area.  If your application ran properly without those
>proprietary dlls, and the API that is used to talk to those dlls is
>public, and other companies also produced dlls that could be used with
>your application, I'd probably agree that it's OK.  If your
>application didn't work without those DLLs and there were no other
>DLLs or applications that used that interface, I'd say it was still
>one work, and the GPL would apply to both components.
>
>The user should be able to start from source, and rebuild the "whole
>thing", without having to rely on binary modules to get a functioning
>application.

This 'grey area' is I suppose how it is legal for us to link to M$oft
libraries.

I have found this interpretation to be a place where the GPL actually limits
what I can give away.

FWIW
I am a major contributor to several GPL'd projects to include
http://www.flightgear.org and also a developer of commercial
mapping software.   I have of course modified my personal copy
of FlightGear to include my proprietary code and find it quite
frustrating, that since the project is GPL'd, I can not find away
to let others enjoy this 'enhanced version' with out giving
away the sources from which I make my living.

Regards

Norman Vine



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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Mo DeJong]

DJ, you just went off the deep end with that one. We need to remember
that the GPL has never been tested in court so sitting around
declaring what it might mean strikes me as a waste of time.

The static linking case is clear. Dynamic linking is not so clear,
it is likely covered by the GPL but who knows for sure. GPLed
Java libs use dynamic linking but do not cause Java programs
to become GPLed. Talking to a GPLed program over
a socket does not have anything to do with the GPL.

If I unsubscribe from this mailing list does pine become GPLed :)

Mo Dejong
Red Hat Inc.

On Tue, 2 May 2000, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> > Then again if you wanted to be more legal, stick the Cygwin stuff 
> > into a server program and talk to it only via RPC or sockets instead 
> > of direct dynamic linking.
> 
> The GPL doesn't talk about programs, it talks about "works".  It
> doesn't matter how the two parts communicate.  The legal definition of
> "works", I've been told, is pretty clear, so it would be easy for the
> court to decide if your tricks were a violation or not, if it ever
> came down to that.
> 
> My rule is that if you split it up for the purposes of avoiding the
> GPL, you probably aren't avoiding it.
> 
> > violate the GPL, but then if that was the case you would never be 
> > able to run proprietry programs under Linux because GNOME is GPL as 
> > is the Linux kernel.
> 
> The linux kernel (or libc, I forget which) has an exception in its
> copyright that specifically allows this.  It's not a side-effect of
> the GPL.
> 
> --
> 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: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> I would venture that legally you could link against a propriatary
> DLL that you distributed separately ( and perhaps sold )
> and still use Cygwin for the rest of the application.

This is a grey area.  If your application ran properly without those
proprietary dlls, and the API that is used to talk to those dlls is
public, and other companies also produced dlls that could be used with
your application, I'd probably agree that it's OK.  If your
application didn't work without those DLLs and there were no other
DLLs or applications that used that interface, I'd say it was still
one work, and the GPL would apply to both components.

The user should be able to start from source, and rebuild the "whole
thing", without having to rely on binary modules to get a functioning
application.

Remember, the GPL talks about "works", not programs.  You have to know
if you have created one work that happens to be composed of more than
one file/program/whatever, or if you have really created two
independent works that just happen to be able to be used together, but
could be used separately.  Two programs that talk over TCP/IP between
two computers in different countries may still be only one work,
depending on how co-dependent they are.

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> Then again if you wanted to be more legal, stick the Cygwin stuff 
> into a server program and talk to it only via RPC or sockets instead 
> of direct dynamic linking.

The GPL doesn't talk about programs, it talks about "works".  It
doesn't matter how the two parts communicate.  The legal definition of
"works", I've been told, is pretty clear, so it would be easy for the
court to decide if your tricks were a violation or not, if it ever
came down to that.

My rule is that if you split it up for the purposes of avoiding the
GPL, you probably aren't avoiding it.

> violate the GPL, but then if that was the case you would never be 
> able to run proprietry programs under Linux because GNOME is GPL as 
> is the Linux kernel.

The linux kernel (or libc, I forget which) has an exception in its
copyright that specifically allows this.  It's not a side-effect of
the GPL.

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

RE: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Norman Vine]

>> Actually, I think it's even a bit less restrictive than that.  I
>> believe that you can sell an application that depends on CygWin,
>> even as a closed-source proprietary program.
>
>No, this is just plain wrong.  When you build an application with
>cygwin, part of cygwin itself is statically linked into the
>application.  The application is GPL at that point.
>

I find this discussion very interesting and I hope others do not 
find it a waste of bandwidth.

I would venture that legally you could link against a propriatary
DLL that you distributed separately ( and perhaps sold )
and still use Cygwin for the rest of the application.

Norman Vine

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Kendall Bennett]

DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:

> > Actually, I think it's even a bit less restrictive than that.  I
> > believe that you can sell an application that depends on CygWin,
> > even as a closed-source proprietary program.
> 
> No, this is just plain wrong.  When you build an application with
> cygwin, part of cygwin itself is statically linked into the
> application.  The application is GPL at that point.

You know you can easily work around this particular problem too, 
since you can compile the stuff that uses Cygwin into a DLL and put 
that under an Open Source license. Then your app links against the 
DLL and not directly to any Cygwin code. Even if your DLL itself is 
GPL'ed, this is not a violation of the license. Lots of people will 
say that static linking and dynamic linking of GPL code is the same, 
but you I doubt you would never win that fight in court because there 
are too many pre-existing examples of this. 

Then again if you wanted to be more legal, stick the Cygwin stuff 
into a server program and talk to it only via RPC or sockets instead 
of direct dynamic linking. One could argue that this would also 
violate the GPL, but then if that was the case you would never be 
able to run proprietry programs under Linux because GNOME is GPL as 
is the Linux kernel.

Regards,

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|   SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software!     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett          | Email: KendallB@scitechsoft.com    |
| Director of Engineering  | Phone: (530) 894 8400              |
| SciTech Software, Inc.   | Fax  : (530) 894 9069              |
| 505 Wall Street          | ftp  : ftp.scitechsoft.com         |
| Chico, CA 95928, USA     | www  : http://www.scitechsoft.com  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+


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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> Actually, I think it's even a bit less restrictive than that.  I
> believe that you can sell an application that depends on CygWin,
> even as a closed-source proprietary program.

No, this is just plain wrong.  When you build an application with
cygwin, part of cygwin itself is statically linked into the
application.  The application is GPL at that point.

> saying that YOU can't distribute the GPL'd software that your
> closed-proprietary application depends on, but you can tell the user
> where to get it.

"Making it available" and "distributing it" are the same thing.
Putting a file up for ftp and letting a user copy it to their own
machine is no different than putting it on a floppy and letting the
user copy it off the floppy.  The only time it's not a distribution is
if the recipient broke into the user's machine and stole it against
the user's will.

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Charles Hixson]

Actually, I think it's even a bit less restrictive than that.  I believe
that you can sell an application that depends on CygWin, even as a
closed-source proprietary program.  In this case, though, you need to
require that the folk who are going to use it to get their own copy of
CygWin.  IANAL, so I can't judge the validity, but I've heard arguments
saying that YOU can't distribute the GPL'd software that your
closed-proprietary application depends on, but you can tell the user where
to get it.  (This gets way too deep for my hip boots, but, as I said,
IANAL.)

DJ Delorie wrote:

> > I'm still not clear on something.  Can a proprietary,
> > non-open-source software package be ported to run under Cygwin and
> > then sold to customers if, say, a copy of the CD release is
> > purchased and included for every host that the software will run on?
> > Or, would this require the purchase of the Cygwin developer package
>
> It doesn't matter which version of cygwin you have, or where you got
> it from, or how much you paid for it.  If you want to distribute a
> proprietary application that uses Cygwin, you need to purchase a
> proprietary-use license.  If you want to distribute an "open source"
> application that uses Cygwin, you don't need to purchase anything.
>
> Note that I said "distribute", not "write".  You can always write any
> application you want, if you only use it yourself (or within your
> company, if it's a company-written application), because you aren't
> distributing those.  You meet the terms of the GPL if you don't
> distribute your program, regardless of any other license terms it has.
>
> > (I can't find the link for that, at the moment - the Web site seems
> > to have been partially absorbed into Red Hat)?
>
> Send email to cygwin-info@cygnus.com if you are interested in the
> proprietary-use license.  The commercial URL for cygwin is
> http://www.cygnus.com/cygwin/
>
> --
> 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: Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

> I'm still not clear on something.  Can a proprietary,
> non-open-source software package be ported to run under Cygwin and
> then sold to customers if, say, a copy of the CD release is
> purchased and included for every host that the software will run on?
> Or, would this require the purchase of the Cygwin developer package

It doesn't matter which version of cygwin you have, or where you got
it from, or how much you paid for it.  If you want to distribute a
proprietary application that uses Cygwin, you need to purchase a
proprietary-use license.  If you want to distribute an "open source"
application that uses Cygwin, you don't need to purchase anything.

Note that I said "distribute", not "write".  You can always write any
application you want, if you only use it yourself (or within your
company, if it's a company-written application), because you aren't
distributing those.  You meet the terms of the GPL if you don't
distribute your program, regardless of any other license terms it has.

> (I can't find the link for that, at the moment - the Web site seems
> to have been partially absorbed into Red Hat)?

Send email to cygwin-info@cygnus.com if you are interested in the
proprietary-use license.  The commercial URL for cygwin is
http://www.cygnus.com/cygwin/

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

Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Doug Wyatt]

Okay, since we seem to be covering this topic pretty thoroughly,
I'm still not clear on something.  Can a proprietary, non-open-source
software package be ported to run under Cygwin and then sold to
customers if, say, a copy of the CD release is purchased and included
for every host that the software will run on?  Or, would this require the
purchase of the Cygwin developer package (I can't find the link for that,
at the moment - the Web site seems to have been partially absorbed
into Red Hat)?

Regards,
Doug Wyatt


> 
> Just to avoid panic, here is a list of things you *can* do with
> Cygwin...
> 
> --- if you don't purchase the proprietary-use license ---
> 
> [Note that these assume you're still meeting the terms of the GPL,
> specifically, you distribute sources with any binaries]
> 
> You can...
> 
> * give copies to your friends (or enemies, if you like).
> 
> * install it on as many computers as you like.
> 
> * sell exact copies of what's on sourceware.
> 
> * modify it and sell it.
> 
> * charge a fee to do custom changes, which you don't tell
>   anyone else about.
> 
> * charge a fee to do changes which you contribute to the
>   official sources.
> 
> * change it and not tell anyone.
> 
> * start a new group of cygwin developers, and distribute your
>   own version publically.
> 
> * write programs (apps) that use cygwin.
> 
> * use those apps yourself for whatever you want.
> 
> * give those apps to friends (or enemies).
> 
> * charge a fee for those apps (even though you're distributing
>   sources too).
> 
> * choose an alternate "open source" license for the app (the
>   cygwin dll remains GPLd).
> 
> * do any of the above without asking our permission.
> 
> --- if you DO purchase the proprietary-use license ---
> 
> * Any of the above
> 
> * distribute (sell, give away, whatever) an app without sources.
> 
> --- and, for completeness, things you do NOT have to do with cygwin ---
> 
> You do NOT have to...
> 
> * tell anyone about your changes, if you don't want to.
> 
> * give sources to people without binaries (unless you use GPL clause
>   3b, there are some loopholes in 3b to be aware of), if you don't
>   want to.
> 
> ---
> 
> I probably missed some, but you get the idea.  I hope.
> 
> DJ
> 
> --
> 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: Things you can do with Cygwin

[Earnie Boyd]

Please,

Add this verbatim to the FAQ.

Earnie.

--- DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
> 
> Just to avoid panic, here is a list of things you *can* do with
> Cygwin...
> 
> --- if you don't purchase the proprietary-use license ---
> 
> [Note that these assume you're still meeting the terms of the GPL,
> specifically, you distribute sources with any binaries]
> 
> You can...
> 
> * give copies to your friends (or enemies, if you like).
> 
> * install it on as many computers as you like.
> 
> * sell exact copies of what's on sourceware.
> 
> * modify it and sell it.
> 
> * charge a fee to do custom changes, which you don't tell
>   anyone else about.
> 
> * charge a fee to do changes which you contribute to the
>   official sources.
> 
> * change it and not tell anyone.
> 
> * start a new group of cygwin developers, and distribute your
>   own version publically.
> 
> * write programs (apps) that use cygwin.
> 
> * use those apps yourself for whatever you want.
> 
> * give those apps to friends (or enemies).
> 
> * charge a fee for those apps (even though you're distributing
>   sources too).
> 
> * choose an alternate "open source" license for the app (the
>   cygwin dll remains GPLd).
> 
> * do any of the above without asking our permission.
> 
> --- if you DO purchase the proprietary-use license ---
> 
> * Any of the above
> 
> * distribute (sell, give away, whatever) an app without sources.
> 
> --- and, for completeness, things you do NOT have to do with cygwin ---
> 
> You do NOT have to...
> 
> * tell anyone about your changes, if you don't want to.
> 
> * give sources to people without binaries (unless you use GPL clause
>   3b, there are some loopholes in 3b to be aware of), if you don't
>   want to.
> 
> ---
> 
> I probably missed some, but you get the idea.  I hope.
> 
> DJ
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

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

Things you can do with Cygwin

[DJ Delorie]

Just to avoid panic, here is a list of things you *can* do with
Cygwin...

--- if you don't purchase the proprietary-use license ---

[Note that these assume you're still meeting the terms of the GPL,
specifically, you distribute sources with any binaries]

You can...

* give copies to your friends (or enemies, if you like).

* install it on as many computers as you like.

* sell exact copies of what's on sourceware.

* modify it and sell it.

* charge a fee to do custom changes, which you don't tell
  anyone else about.

* charge a fee to do changes which you contribute to the
  official sources.

* change it and not tell anyone.

* start a new group of cygwin developers, and distribute your
  own version publically.

* write programs (apps) that use cygwin.

* use those apps yourself for whatever you want.

* give those apps to friends (or enemies).

* charge a fee for those apps (even though you're distributing
  sources too).

* choose an alternate "open source" license for the app (the
  cygwin dll remains GPLd).

* do any of the above without asking our permission.

--- if you DO purchase the proprietary-use license ---

* Any of the above

* distribute (sell, give away, whatever) an app without sources.

--- and, for completeness, things you do NOT have to do with cygwin ---

You do NOT have to...

* tell anyone about your changes, if you don't want to.

* give sources to people without binaries (unless you use GPL clause
  3b, there are some loopholes in 3b to be aware of), if you don't
  want to.

---

I probably missed some, but you get the idea.  I hope.

DJ

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