On Thu, Sep 02, 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > This is really really simple and I don't know why it is so confusing. > > If your program uses the cygwin DLL, then your program is GPLed.
On possible reason for confusion is that statments like this one (which have appeared many times on this list) are poorly worded. It would be better to say something like this: If you distribute a program linked to the cygwin DLL without making that program available under the GPL (or an equivalent allowable license) you are in violation of the license under which you received the cygwin DLL in the first place. It is possible, but unlikely, that a court could order a remedy that would force you to distribute your program under the GPL. It is not that case that violating the cygwin license means that "your program is GPLed" in some instantaneous or automatic fashion, simply as consequence of your bad behavior. Fears that programs might somehow be automatically forced under the GPL may help propagate the (false) perception that the GPL is "viral". ...dave case -- 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/
