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

[Mark Eichin <eichin@cygnus.com>]

> I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
> want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
> link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$.  Not all
> that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.

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)
	(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 :-)

[I'm not representing Cygnus in this; though I've used and hacked on
cygwin32, all of my current Cygnus work [Kerberos in particular] is
under an X11-style license, though Federal Regulations make it
"difficult" to redistribute...]

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 :-)


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .