Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including
> > portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being
> Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're
> *not* including portions of libc5 in your binary. A replacement libc5
> that met the "interface" of the one you used could be dropped in
> instead. (#including header files, that counts -- but not linking --
> and it's sometimes surprising how much code can get away without using
> the header files...)
> The same is true of .dll's and *that* is the crux of the discussion.
Correct from my viewpoint
> Now that I've been informed that libc5 is really under the LGPL (or at
> least parts of it claim to be) and that the /usr/doc/libc5/copyright
> file is *wrong*, I can certainly see a difference between that and
> cygwin32.dll. Nonetheless, neither is anything like QT.
However, as far as I know, you can't statically link something a .dll
under windows anyways, so it doesn't matter. The GPL is fine, and you
can still use it for commercial software.
> For some more perspective on the "interface" argument, go back and see
> some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU "libmp" (multiple
> precision integer math library.) See also the discussion of just a
> week or three ago about a company shipping a commercial package that
> uses GNU RCS underneath -- but since GNU RCS is built as a DLL (and
> they ship sources for those changes, and gnu rcs itself) they don't
> have to ship the program sources (and have allegedly run this past
> the FSF for confirmation that it was OK....) Recall that RCS is
> GPLed, not LGPLed.
> Isn't this fascinating? :-) I must admit that I'm glad to see, all in
> all, that this discussion has stayed *so* polite in comparison to the
> typical gnu.misc.discuss or other open net thread. Thanks!
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .