Shaya Potter wrote: > i.e. if they say the software is LGPL'd for normal > use, but if the use is deemed to be in competition with them, than they > are operating under the GPL. Is that legal? They don't say that the software will be LPGL'd for normal use - future releases will be under the "Cygwin32 License". Here's an excerpt from their license at: http://www.cygnus.com/misc/gnu-win32/cygwin32-license-1.0.html | 2.2. RUN TIME LIBRARY LICENSE FOR NON-CYGNUS PRODUCTS | | [You can use "cygwin.dll" with software you develop provided you are not | an embedded systems developer or a | compiler developer.] | | Provided | | you are not an Embedded Systems Software Company, and | you do not reproduce and/or distribute the Cygwin32_DLL for or | on behalf of an Embedded_Systems_Software_Company, and | you do not reproduce and/or distribute the Cygwin32_DLL as part | of a Compiler_Suite, | | then you may reproduce and/or distribute the Cygwin32_DLL for use with | non-GNUPro_Toolkit software. Frankly - it's a bit clearer about what you can do with it than releasing it under the GPL (since it's a library). That's good. But it's just another example of a potentially really good Free Software project going private. It's also a bit disturbing that they prefer to issue a license like this, when they are such large contributors to the GNU toolset. I always thought that their primary distinction as a company was that they were the "most successful free software company". Oh well, I wasn't planning to buy into their upcoming IPO anyways... :-) Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpPIjBOMSIFP.pgp
Description: PGP signature