Re: CYGWIN1.DLL

[Corinna Vinschen <cygwin@cygwin.com>]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 08:40:05PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I don't see what it would encourage license violations.  You know
> give 2 files, which will be turned into 1.  You should give a
> written offer for all the sources in both cases.
> 
> Anyway, I'm of the opinion the DLL should be LGPL.  It wouldn't
> force us to release software under the GPL if it's linked against
> it.

The point is that software which is linked against Cygwin has to
conform with the GPL, which basically means, if you release it
publically you'll have to release your sources as well.

What is the problem with that? Nobody hinders you to make
money with your project. As long as the sources are available
according to the GPL. That's the whole point of the GPL.

The only point I can see NOT to release the sources of your
application is, that you fear another person might simply
copy your stuff and you can't make money with it.

That's ok. You can have that with Cygwin as well. You just
have to buy a proprietary Cygwin license from RH and you are
allowed to release your stuff proprietary.

> The setup program itself, under what license does that fall?
> Where are the sources of it, if they are available?

It's GPL'd and the sources are part of the Cygwin DLL source tree.
They are available e.g. in the developer snapshots and via CVS.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/