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

[Harold L Hunt II]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> Harold,
> 
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>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
> 
> 
> Isn't that what I said (see underlined part above)?  But you're right,
> let's just forget it.
> 	Igor

Igor,

I don't know that the majority of readers would know that "not in 
violation of the GPL" and "complies with the Open Source definition" 
sort of mean the same thing.  The latter at least points them to the so 
called Open Source definition, while the former leaves them hanging, 
wondering if their license is in violation or not.

Harold