This is the mail archive of the 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: long double support in cygwin

> I agree. When I LGPLed inline-math, I wanted to make it *easier* for all
> developers to be able to use this code, by relaxing some of the restrictions
> of the plain GPL license. To quote from the LGPL:

The exception is made when the library has a competitive equivalent,
such that the intrinsic value of the library itself isn't enough for
users to warrant using it.  For example, the C library is LGPL because
there are lots of C libraries, but realine is GPL because there are no

> > There are licensing considerations which prevent us from taking code
> > from LGPLed sources
> This does not seem to be consistent with the spirit of the above statements.
> If there are genuine legal reasons that are preventing use of LGPL'ed
> sources, this should be taken up with FSF. Could appropriate modifications
> to the LGPL license solve this problem?

The terms of the LGPL aren't the problem.  It's the *copyright* that's
the problem.  Any code in cygwin or newlib must be owned by Red Hat,
or distributed under terms that allow Red Hat to distribute it the way
it does (combination gpl and proprietary).  The GPL and LGPL simply
don't give us the option of offering a proprietary-use license, and
such licenses fund a lot of the official work on those projects.  We
would need a legal exception to use someone else's [L]GPL'd work.


The files in that directory claim to be owned by the FSF.  Thus, you
aren't legally allowed to grant exceptions to the LGPL for them.  The
test/* files claim to be owned by Stephen Moshier.  Exceptions for
those would have to come from him.

Yes, I'm being picky, but lack of attention to such details is what
legal nightmares are made of.

> In any case, I hereby give my permission to 
> Christopher Faylor <> 

Permission would have to be granted to Red Hat, and they'd probably
want something on paper with a signature.  They'd probably also want
something from your employer, to make sure what you did isn't a
work-for-hire (which you also wouldn't own).  As you are a math
professor at a university, it is likely that they, not you, own any
such work you do there.

Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to

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