On 12/4/2012 4:34 PM, Chaz Littlejohn wrote:
By my understanding, if you're
distributing GPLv3+ software such as cygwin1.dll, these are not rights
you can withhold on that software.
This is true for all GPL versions. Cygwin's license is GPL with an
exception to allow any Open Source product to not be infected but that
is the limit. You cannot create proprietary software without paying
Redhat for that privilege; they do offer an alternative license. See
http://cygwin.com/licensing.html for details.
Stop me if i'm wrong, but since the program only invokes the plugin by
exec, and the program is not using the dlls or sharing data, it's my
understanding that they're considered separate programs under GPL3 and
the licensing requirements do not apply.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
IANAL but I believe there are 2 issues here:
1. Whether your use of Cygwin means your program also needs to fall under
the GPL
2. Distribution of the Cygwin DLL and its utilities
If what you describe above about your usage of Cygwin is correct, then I
believe (1) is not an issue for you. However, (2) still applies since you
cannot distribute GPL'd software without providing the source as well.
But this is getting a little off-topic for this list. If you'd like to
follow-up on this more, it's best to take it the Cygwin Licensing list,
keeping in mind that no one there is a lawyer either and free legal
advice is worth exactly what you pay for it. ;-)
<http://cygwin.com/lists.html#cygwin-licensing>
--
Larry
_____________________________________________________________________
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
