CygWin GPLing by proxy (Was: Cannot display through rsh)

[Harold L Hunt II]

Igor,

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Steinar Bang wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>>>Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu>:
>>
>>[snip!]
>>
>>>Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to distribute the resulting
>>>application, because anything linked with cygwin1.dll automatically
>>>becomes GPLd.  If you could find an open-source JDK, this problem
>>>would not arise.
>>
>>IANAL, but... can this be right?
>>
>>If I write an application for UNIX/linux and make it available under
>>some other license than GPL, and someone else ports it to CygWin, I
>>don't see how this would automatically make my application be GPL'd?
>>
>>An in any case, this would only apply to the JDK in this case.  A Java
>>application running inside the JDK shouldn't be affected in any way.
>>
>>Ah well.  Off-topic I guess.  And it isn't even Friday anymore.
> 
> 
> Steinar,
> 
> Well, there has been plenty of GPL discussion on the Cygwin list -- let's
> not also start it on cygwin-xfree.  However, since this involves something
> I said, I'd like to correct one misunderstanding: if you release your
> application under some licence that's not compatible with GPL (as defined
> by FSF), whoever ports your application to Cygwin and distributes it is
> *in violation* of the GPL (but that does not make your application GPL --
> you, as the author, completely control the licensing terms).  For more
> information, please review the numerous discussions on the Cygwin list or
> contact a GPL discussion list.
> 	Igor

Right, I agree that we are not discussing this here.  However, I think 
that your comment was either simply wrong, or not allowing for the 
possibility (which he seems to be indicating) that his application would 
be released under an "Open Source" compatible license.  From the Cygwin 
licensing page (http://cygwin.com/licensing.html):

"In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs 
whose sources are distributed under a license that complies with the 
Open Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a without libcygwin.a 
itself causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL."


So, since this isn't really a case of things being "automatically 
GPL'd", lets just forget it.

Harold