[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)

> Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin32.dll different from libc5.so
> in this regard (since the license for both is the same: GPL)

libc5 appears to be under the GPL, while libc6 appears to be under
the LGPL.  Weird.  Does that mean that anything that is linked
against libc5 has to be GPL'd?  I'm surprised I haven't heard
more about this - I obviously don't know the whole story.

Maybe there is just widespread abuse of the GPL.  If everyone is just
ignoring it, that doesn't provide much legal protection for Cygnus if 
they're trying to make money off of cygwin.dll.

> 	(2) the discussion wasn't writing *comercial* software with
> anything, but writing *free* software with a pseudo-free package like
> Qt... so how did we get here?  There's *certainly* no problem writing
> gpl'ed software with cygwin32.dll :-)

There's not really any problem writing *free* software with Qt either.

That's why I deliberately confused them together...

Free software shouldn't be about confusion.

> ps.  A friend of mine with whom I've been discussing this says that
> if we took all the time we've spent flaming about this and actually
> *wrote some code* we wouldn't have the problem in the first place :-)

I am working with cygwin.dll right now actually, trying to get dpkg
to port to it (well, trying to hack it so I can get Perl to go, so
then I can attempt to build dpkg).  Klee is going to update the
cross-compiler to assist me.

Hopefully, cygwin.dll can become a part of the Debian distribution
for a Win32 port, playing the same role as the Linux kernel.  But it 
would be a shame if we have to reclassify the copyrights on every package 
in the distribution (and prohibit non-free stuff) just because of it.


 - Jim

Attachment: pgpoM2qxMovw2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: