Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > 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.
> I believe that regardless of what our copyright file says, glibc 1.0
> (libc5) and 2.0 (libc6) are both LGPL--at least the library parts.
> Other programs grouped with the libc package are probably GPL.
Ack! I must be blind, I looked right at this file right before posting
too, from stdio.h:
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Right there, 2nd line 'GNU Library General'.
/usr/doc/copyright/libc5 says GPL not LGPL.
Sounds like a bug in the libc5 package!!
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .