Licensing Terms

Licensing Terms

[Van Murray]

Hello!

I am interested in learning more about the licensing terms associated
with distribution of the cygwin run time. Specifically, I would like to
distribute the dll as a matter of convenience including a pointer to the
site of origin. Are there any licensing concerns with this and if so,
would they be resolved with the Win32 GNUPro product?

Thank-you,

-Van.


-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".

Re: Licensing terms

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 10:37:07AM -0400, Clark, Matthew C (FL51) wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Corinna Vinschen [ mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:17 AM
>> To: Clark, Matthew C (FL51)
>> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
>> Subject: Re: Licensing terms
>> 
>> Basically you'll have to release the sources of applications linked
>> against Cygwin. Except when
>> 
>> - you never release the application since you're using it only
>>   internally in your office or so. That's the trivial case.
>> 
>> - you purchase a special Cygwin license from Red Hat. For a
>>   one time fee per project you may distribute also proprietary
>>   software linked against Cygwin.
>>   Visit http://www.redhat.com/products/support/cygwin/ for more
>>   information.
>
>Ok, thanks for the info.  Now for the follow-up.  Say I build a 
>archive library, my_lib.a, based entirely on my own source code
>and does NOT link in a GPL library, eg libcygwin.a, though it
>does #include standard templates.
>
>ie, gcc -c biff.c ; gcc -c bob.c ; ar -o my_lib.a biff.o bob.o  
>
>First, does my_lib.a fall under GPL? 

First,
I don't think that the explanations given here have been completely
correct.  If you provide the sources to your application under the GPL
you don't need to provide sources to cygwin, too.  Check out the licensing
terms at http://cygwin.com/ .

Second,
If your library uses no cygwin imports like (strchr, strcpy, etc.) then
the GPL doesn't apply.  You can verify this with the nm command.  If you
have undefined symbols then you haven't isolated your library from cygwin.

Regardless, if the end user links with gcc under cygwin, they *will* be
using the cygwin DLL.  Their sources will be GPLed.

If you don't want to use cygwin, then use -mno-cygwin.

cgf

--
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/

RE: Licensing terms

[Clark, Matthew C (FL51)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corinna Vinschen [ mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com ]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:17 AM
> To: Clark, Matthew C (FL51)
> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Licensing terms
> 
> Basically you'll have to release the sources of applications linked
> against Cygwin. Except when
> 
> - you never release the application since you're using it only
>   internally in your office or so. That's the trivial case.
> 
> - you purchase a special Cygwin license from Red Hat. For a
>   one time fee per project you may distribute also proprietary
>   software linked against Cygwin.
>   Visit http://www.redhat.com/products/support/cygwin/ for more
>   information.

Ok, thanks for the info.  Now for the follow-up.  Say I build a 
archive library, my_lib.a, based entirely on my own source code
and does NOT link in a GPL library, eg libcygwin.a, though it
does #include standard templates.

ie, gcc -c biff.c ; gcc -c bob.c ; ar -o my_lib.a biff.o bob.o  

First, does my_lib.a fall under GPL? 

If not, if I distribute my_lib.a binary and a user then uses it to 
build an executable under cygwin, where do the "open source" 
boundaries lie?

Matt Clark
matthew.c.clark@honeywell.com



--
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/

Re: Licensing terms

[Charles Wilson]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:52:31AM -0400, Clark, Matthew C (FL51) wrote:
> 
> Basically you'll have to release the sources of applications linked
> against Cygwin. Except when
> 
> - you never release the application since you're using it only
>   internally in your office or so. That's the trivial case.
> 
> - you purchase a special Cygwin license from Red Hat. For a
>   one time fee per project you may distribute also proprietary
>   software linked against Cygwin.
>   Visit http://www.redhat.com/products/support/cygwin/ for more
>   information.


The key here is that this is not a gcc thing -- it's a cygwin thing. 
"sources of applications *linked against Cygwin*"

This does not mean "merely built using cygwin tools" -- however, the 
cygwin tools (gcc) default to linking against Cygwin.  To build apps 
that are not thusly linked, you have to use 'gcc -mno-cygwin" -- but 
then you lose the POSIX emulation that Cygwin provides, and you can 
really only build code that has been ported to "pure" native Windows.

For the "why" behind all this, see the links provided in other messages 
in this thread.

--Chuck



--
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/

Re: Licensing terms

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 03:26:51PM +0200, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> It would be possible otherwise if it was LGPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

> > > I'm looking for a little clarification about the GPL that covers 
> > > cygwin, specifically the gcc compiler.  I used to be under the 
> > > impression that if I modified something covered by the GPL (such as 
> > > a linux module, or a cygwin tool), then I'd have to make the changes
> > 
> > > public.  Now it seems that even if I just use/link a GPL'ed object, 
> > > such as libcygwin.a, I have to make any and all source code I might 
> > > have compiled under cygwin's gcc open source.  Is this correct?  
> > > If so, is this specific to cygwin or GPL in general and when 
> > > did this happen?  
> > 
> > Basically you'll have to release the sources of applications linked
> > against Cygwin. Except when
> > 
> > - you never release the application since you're using it only
> >   internally in your office or so. That's the trivial case.
> > 
> > - you purchase a special Cygwin license from Red Hat. For a
> >   one time fee per project you may distribute also proprietary
> >   software linked against Cygwin.
> >   Visit http://www.redhat.com/products/support/cygwin/ for more
> >   information.

-- 
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/

Re: Licensing terms

[Steve Lhomme]

It would be possible otherwise if it was LGPL.

> > I'm looking for a little clarification about the GPL that covers 
> > cygwin, specifically the gcc compiler.  I used to be under the 
> > impression that if I modified something covered by the GPL (such as 
> > a linux module, or a cygwin tool), then I'd have to make the changes
> 
> > public.  Now it seems that even if I just use/link a GPL'ed object, 
> > such as libcygwin.a, I have to make any and all source code I might 
> > have compiled under cygwin's gcc open source.  Is this correct?  
> > If so, is this specific to cygwin or GPL in general and when 
> > did this happen?  
> 
> Basically you'll have to release the sources of applications linked
> against Cygwin. Except when
> 
> - you never release the application since you're using it only
>   internally in your office or so. That's the trivial case.
> 
> - you purchase a special Cygwin license from Red Hat. For a
>   one time fee per project you may distribute also proprietary
>   software linked against Cygwin.
>   Visit http://www.redhat.com/products/support/cygwin/ for more
>   information.

--
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/

Re: Licensing terms

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:52:31AM -0400, Clark, Matthew C (FL51) wrote:
> 
> I'm looking for a little clarification about the GPL that covers 
> cygwin, specifically the gcc compiler.  I used to be under the 
> impression that if I modified something covered by the GPL (such as 
> a linux module, or a cygwin tool), then I'd have to make the changes 
> public.  Now it seems that even if I just use/link a GPL'ed object, 
> such as libcygwin.a, I have to make any and all source code I might 
> have compiled under cygwin's gcc open source.  Is this correct?  
> If so, is this specific to cygwin or GPL in general and when 
> did this happen?  

Basically you'll have to release the sources of applications linked
against Cygwin. Except when

- you never release the application since you're using it only
  internally in your office or so. That's the trivial case.

- you purchase a special Cygwin license from Red Hat. For a
  one time fee per project you may distribute also proprietary
  software linked against Cygwin.
  Visit http://www.redhat.com/products/support/cygwin/ for more
  information.

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/

Licensing terms

[Clark, Matthew C (FL51)]

I'm looking for a little clarification about the GPL that covers 
cygwin, specifically the gcc compiler.  I used to be under the 
impression that if I modified something covered by the GPL (such as 
a linux module, or a cygwin tool), then I'd have to make the changes 
public.  Now it seems that even if I just use/link a GPL'ed object, 
such as libcygwin.a, I have to make any and all source code I might 
have compiled under cygwin's gcc open source.  Is this correct?  
If so, is this specific to cygwin or GPL in general and when 
did this happen?  

Please include me directly in any followup as I only get the digest
version of the cygwin mailing list.  Thanks.

Matt Clark
matthew.c.clark@honeywell.com

--
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/

Re: licensing terms

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 12:33:11PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> If the application is built the -mno-cygwin option, is libcygwin.a
>> left out of the .exe?
>
>Yes.
>
>> If so, could you then legally distribute your binary without source?
>
>Yes, unless there are other reasons to include source.

That's right.  There has been some confusion lately with the cygwin licensing
terms.  Apparently some companies have been using Red Hat's alternate licensing
for cygwin as a "Get out of jail free" card.  They've assumed that they can
indiscriminately distribute things like bash, awk, and sed without worrying about
the GPL.  Since those programs are *already* GPLed there is no way that Red
Hat's commercial cygwin license can affect them.

The commercial licensing terms that Red Hat supplies only affect any binaries
built by the customer.  They don't affect the cygwin package, in general (with
the exception of cygwin-specific utilities like, ps, mount, cygcheck, etc.).

cgf

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

Re: licensing terms

[DJ Delorie]

> If the application is built the -mno-cygwin option, is libcygwin.a
> left out of the .exe?

Yes.

> If so, could you then legally distribute your binary without source?

Yes, unless there are other reasons to include source.

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

Re: licensing terms

[John McClenning]

At 12:04 PM 8/8/00 -0400, you wrote:

> > Does that mean there is no way to sell a product (executable,
> > without the source code) that's been built using gcc & cygwin ? In
> > fact, I cannot see clearly what "Cygwin library" means, does it just
> > mean "cygwin1.dll" or everything ?
>

[..SNIP..]

>As for what "Cygwin Library" is, it's talking about libcygwin.a, that
>part of cygwin that is actually linked into your .exe.  Although
>cygwin1.dll is also GPL'd.

If the application is built the -mno-cygwin option, is libcygwin.a left out 
of the .exe?
If so, could you then legally distribute your binary without source?

John


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

Re: licensing terms

[DJ Delorie]

> Does that mean there is no way to sell a product (executable,
> without the source code) that's been built using gcc & cygwin ? In
> fact, I cannot see clearly what "Cygwin library" means, does it just
> mean "cygwin1.dll" or everything ?

Of course not.  *We* sell cygwin, why can't you?  In fact, we
*encourage* it, as long as you comply with the GPL while you do it.
This does mean that you must include source code, but you can still
charge money for it.

If what you want is to omit the source code, then you have three
options:

1. Get over it.

2. But a proprietary-use license from Red Hat (ask cygwin-info@cygnus.com)

3. Use MinGW or some other runtime.

As for what "Cygwin Library" is, it's talking about libcygwin.a, that
part of cygwin that is actually linked into your .exe.  Although
cygwin1.dll is also GPL'd.

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

licensing terms

[NOE Nicolas]

Hello,

I've seen that Cygwin licensing terms are :

>The Cygwin API library found in the winsup subdirectory of the source code
is
>also covered by the GNU GPL. By default, all executables link against this
>library (and in the process include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). This means
that
>unless you modify the tools so that compiled executables do not make use of
>the Cygwin library, your compiled programs will also have to be free
software 
>distributed under the GPL with source code available to all.

Does that mean there is no way to sell a product (executable, without the
source code) that's been built using gcc & cygwin ? In fact, I cannot see
clearly what "Cygwin library" means, does it just mean "cygwin1.dll" or
everything ?

Nicolas

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

Re: Licensing Terms

[DJ Delorie]

Stephen Vance wrote:
> My understanding is that you are allowed to point to the sources.  You
> merely need to make them available.

For the GNU GPL version 2, RMS's interpretation is that the sources
have to be made available from the same FTP site (if you use FTP),
because you don't have control over what's available at our site,
and we may remove the particular sources your dll is built with,
and you would unknowingly become in voilation of the GPL.  You
may also not be able to get to our site, due to network problems,
corporate site blocking firewalls, weird politics, etc.  Basically,
the only way to ensure that people who can get the DLL can also
get the sources is to put them on the same machine.

In GPL 3, this may be relaxed a bit, allowing you to use sources
on the Internet to satisfy non-internet binary distributions,
but you would still need to be in control of those sources,
so that you can ensure that they remain available for the required
time (three years).

Of course, Cygnus may choose to interpret it differently, since we're
the copyright owners.  However, if it (for some reason) makes it to
a court trial, it's still *your* responsibility to provide
the sources, not ours, if *you* are the one distributing the DLL.

> However, you must also include pointers to *your own* sources.  In effect,
> linking against the Cygwin DLL "taints" your code.  This is the essential
> distinction between the GPL and the Library GPL (LGPL) in my understanding.

In the case of DLLs, the LGPL would be ideal, because you could 
just ship the sources to the one DLL and leave your application
as a pure binary (rather than objects, as the LGPL requires
for static libraries).  However, using the LGPL would also remove
any influence cygwin has to coerce people to write free software
(I don't know if this is the real reason for GPL vs LGPL, but it
is *one* reason I can think of) and/or purchase a commercial
license from Cygnus (if you think this is selfish, remember
that my paycheck depends on those licenses).

The cygwin license predates my involvement, so I don't know what
the original motivations were.
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".

Re: Licensing Terms

[Stephen Vance]

zigweidr wrote:

> DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > Cygwin's licensing terms are spelled out here:
> >
> >   http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html
> >
> > Basically, not only can you *not* distribute cygwin's
> > dll without sources, but if you use cygwin's dll,
> > you can *not* distribute *your* program without sources
> > either.
> >
> This may be just a technicality, but I think that this is important
> enough that we don't want to mislead the readers here.  I don't think
> that the sources have to be included with the binaries that are compiled
> according to the GPL.  They do, however, have to be made available.
> With regards to the cygwin DLL, pointing it to the address where it was
> gotten would be sufficient yes?  That is making the user of the software
> aware that those sources are in fact available, and thus fullfilling the
> GPL.
>
> However, if Cygnus has made this mandetory in addition to the GPL, this
> is a different issue altogether, but I don't get that from reading the
> licensing link you posted.

My understanding is that you are allowed to point to the sources.  You
merely need to make them available.

However, you must also include pointers to *your own* sources.  In effect,
linking against the Cygwin DLL "taints" your code.  This is the essential
distinction between the GPL and the Library GPL (LGPL) in my understanding.
The LGPL would allow you to link against the library, as long as it was
unchanged from the original or the source for the changes to the original
were available, without being obligated to supply your application source as
well.

--
Stephen Vance                           |  http://www.deneb.com
Deneb Robotics, Inc.                    |  mailto:vance@deneb.com
5500 New King Street                    |  Phone: (248) 267-9696
Troy, MI 48098-2615                     |  Fax:   (248) 267-8585

What is done well is done quickly enough. -Augustus Caesar



-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".

Re: Licensing Terms

[Mumit Khan]

mvoss@kuttig.com writes:
> 
> Does that also apply to software built with EGCS-1.1-MinGW32 ???
> If so, WHAT do I have to buy, and what share does Mumit Khan get of that
> money (he made the MinGW324EGCS package, after all)?

No, it does not apply to software built with EGCS-1.1-Mingw. Cygwin and 
Mingw are completely independent as far as copyrights and licensing issues 
are concerned.

Mingw itself (runtime and the include files etc) explicitly not
copyrighted (by Colin Peters or by anybody else). The egcs-1.1 components 
have various different copyrights/licenses, and it's the same as on any 
Unix system.

> Can I SELL the software built with either Cygwin or EGCS if I include the
> source code?

You can do anything you want with Mingw/egcs built software. As for
software built with Cygwin EGCS, you can always SELL the software as 
long as you comply with the license that comes with Cygwin.

Regards,
Mumit

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".

Re: Licensing Terms

[DJ Delorie]

> Does that also apply to software built with EGCS-1.1-MinGW32 ???

Cygwin's license applies only to Cygwin and things built with Cygwin;
it cannot apply to anything else independent of it.  You have to read
the licensing terms for Mingw to find out its terms, which seem to be:

 "The source code and header files that make up Mingw32 (located in the
  src and include directories of the archive which contained this file)
  are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN."

This means you don't have to do anything special for MingW.  As for
EGCS, it has long been known that compiling a program with gcc or egcs
does not affect the copyright status of the program itself.  Only if
you use egcs's source code as part of your program would the GNU GPL
apply.

Note that MingW uses Microsoft's runtime DLLs; you may want to check
into their license to see if there are any additional restrictions.
These DLLs aren't linked into your program, but if you want to include
these DLLs in your distribution (you shouldn't have to) you might have
a problem.

> If so, WHAT do I have to buy, and what share does Mumit Khan get of that
> money (he made the MinGW324EGCS package, after all)?

Apparently, nothing (for both questions).  You are encouraged to send
donations to people you feel deserve it, but I think that's always
been the case anyway :-)

> Can I SELL the software built with either Cygwin or EGCS if I
> include the source code?

Building with EGCS doesn't matter; that doesn't affect what you can do
with your own programs.  It's only linking with things that affects
your programs.

So, for "built with Cygwin", yes, you can sell your software for as
much as you want, as long as the source code is included and you obey
the terms of the license.  You can't, however, charge a fee (other
than reasonable copying fees) for just the sources, once the user has
the binaries.  You can charge as much as you want for just the sources
if you don't ship binaries; the GNU GPL doesn't stop that.  The GNU
GPL only forces you to "give" the sources *if* the user already has
the binaries.

The GNU GPL also means that once you sell it to one person, you can't
stop them from giving it away to others, as long as they obey the GNU
GPL as well.
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".

Re: Licensing Terms

[zigweidr]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> Cygwin's licensing terms are spelled out here:
> 
>   http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html
> 
> Basically, not only can you *not* distribute cygwin's
> dll without sources, but if you use cygwin's dll,
> you can *not* distribute *your* program without sources
> either.
> 
This may be just a technicality, but I think that this is important
enough that we don't want to mislead the readers here.  I don't think
that the sources have to be included with the binaries that are compiled
according to the GPL.  They do, however, have to be made available. 
With regards to the cygwin DLL, pointing it to the address where it was
gotten would be sufficient yes?  That is making the user of the software
aware that those sources are in fact available, and thus fullfilling the
GPL.  

However, if Cygnus has made this mandetory in addition to the GPL, this
is a different issue altogether, but I don't get that from reading the
licensing link you posted.

-- 
Robert M. Zigweid		Opinions expressed in the above statement
Des Moines MTA			do not reflect the opinions of the DMMTA.
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".

Re: Licensing Terms

[DJ Delorie]

Cygwin's licensing terms are spelled out here:

  http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html

Basically, not only can you *not* distribute cygwin's
dll without sources, but if you use cygwin's dll,
you can *not* distribute *your* program without sources
either.

To ship a dll or a cygwin-built program without
sources, you would need to purchase a commercial
cygwin license from Cygnus, and you will be
given a version of cygwin that allows non-free
use and redistribution.
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".