This is the mail archive of the cygwin-xfree@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Cygwin32 and GPL concerns



It is getting sort of confusing.
Xfree86 License Page reads

"However, some other Open Source compatible licenses are considered too
restrictive for XFree86 use. They include the GNU Public License and the
Perl Artistic License. "

The Xfree86 License refers to Open Source
"These terms are consistent with the Open Source definition. Some portions
of XFree86 may be based on similar licences, like, for example, the
BSD-style license"

Now the Open Source License (OSI) reads:

9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software. (back)
Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own
choices about their own software.
Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. GPLed libraries
`contaminate' only software to which they will actively be linked at
runtime, not software with which they are merely distributed.

^^^^Note it is saying GPL is conformant with this.^^^
We need in put from a BOD member.

Cygwin does not forbid a user to use Cygwin Tool chain, downlaod the Xfree86
code and
compile it yourself.  Cygwin also does not forbid a Commercial License
holder (just like
Microsoft commercial License Holders) not to redistribute products without
code.
My understanding is it requires the freely available Cygwin GPL version user
to have
the source code available if he chooses to distribute binaries.

Cygwin avialble from Net forbids closing the product.  Which is also part of
Open Source Agreement.

7.Distribution of License. (back)
This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means such
as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.

Cygwin, I believe, also allows the clause 5. of Open Source

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. (back)
In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity
of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open
sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody
out of the process.
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for
certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of
applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the
law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.

I am sort of confused here and needs some insight from XFree86 BOD.  If the
Xfree86
source code has Win32 calls which can be compiled using GCC under Cygwin
Envirment
by any users is a contradiction to XFree86?

Microsoft products will put more restrictions if you follow their Software
Agreements.
You would not be allowed to include DDK and DX dlls because the person who
gets them
from you cannot redistribute them.  The only way you can do is to have only
source code
avaiable which compiles with MSVC tools, so license holders can compile it
themselves. But this can be done with any product including Cygwin, that is
have patched sources available which
the user who would have needed development tool chains can compile it.


Suhaib


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-devel@XFree86.Org [mailto:owner-devel@XFree86.Org]On Behalf
> Of Harald Koenig
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 9:22 AM
> To: devel@XFree86.Org
> Subject: Re: Cygwin32 and GPL concerns
>
>
> On Aug 22, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Kendall Bennett wrote:
> >
> > > Actually the above is incorrect. If you link *any* code with pure GPL
> > > code, then all the rest of the code must be under GPL as well. The
> > > catch is that the X11 license specifically allows for commercial use
> > > of XFree86 code, and hence it is not possible to include any GPL'ed
> > > code in XFree86.
> > >
> >     The X11 license allows for fairly arbitrary sublicensing.  That
> > includes the GPL.  It is GPL compatible.  If I (or anyone else)
> wanted, I
> > could distribute XFree86 in its entirety under the GPL.
>
> you still haven't got it:  the XFree86 license allows me/everone to build
> commercial/closed products for which I do _not_ release sources.
> linking against GPL won't allow me to do so anymore.
>
> so for me these licenses are _not_ compatible because GPL tries
> to restrict
> some of  the freedoms of the X license.  that's not what I would
> call `compatible' !
>
>
> Harald
> --
> All SCSI disks will from now on                     ___       _____
> be required to send an email notice                0--,|    /OOOOOOO\
> 24 hours prior to complete hardware failure!      <_/  /  /OOOOOOOOOOO\
>                                                     \  \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
>                                                       \
> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|//
> Harald Koenig,                                         \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik                              //  /     \\  \
> koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de                     ^^^^^       ^^^^^
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]