Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to me
to be very limiting of commercial software running on linux.
>From the GPL section 2:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
I don't know what to make of that, it sounds like the binary has to be
'free'? Which would in turn mean all debian programs are 'free'?
Bah, I have got to quit reading this GPL!
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .