On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote: >On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Matthew O. Persico wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> >?On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote: >> > >> >>>?Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's >> >>>?gcc/g++ is automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some >> >>>?violating... >> >>>?sorry. >> >> >> >>?This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. ?Unless >> >>?you have purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes. >> > >> >?There are some exceptions, IIRC. ?For more information, see >> >?<http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136>?or consult a lawyer. >> >?Igor >> >> I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg >> your indulgence. From the link above: >> >> "To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out >> any binaries, you must also make the source available. " >> >> Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product >> (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source >> exposed, etc. >> >> BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers >> or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I >> don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument >> goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies. >> >> Is that a reasonable interpretation? >> >IANAL >YANALATEYHSMBSI > >In-house use is normally not in violation of the GPL. > >In your example, as long as your program is never sold or distributed in >binary form (ie. you did not sell or give it to the bank in binary >form because the bank owned your labor that created it), and the bank >never sells or distributes the binaries outside itself, I think you are >ok. > >Since these types of distinctions look legally cloudy to me, I would >hesitate strongly to agree with your "goes by the wayside for all >non-software development companies" statement. > >That said, you should consult a lawyer. No one on this list is >a qualified GPL authority. Only the courts can make a determination. > >CGF, the closest person here to an authority, hates GPL conversations. >Don't expect him to speak up unless you are clearly in violation, or this >conversation has already (as it probably has) gone on too long.
I've asked someone more knowledgeable than I to offer an opinion on this issue but, really, as Brian says, the bottom line is to consult a lawyer. If this is a potential real world application, and you really are writing banking software, then you certainly don't want to just go by the opinions of a bunch of mailing list geeks. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
