This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: OpenSSH on windows Problem

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:35:01AM -0700, David A. Case wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>This is really really simple and I don't know why it is so confusing.
>>If your program uses the cygwin DLL, then your program is GPLed.
>On possible reason for confusion is that statments like this one (which
>have appeared many times on this list) are poorly worded.

What an arrogant statement.  I was trying to distill this down to
simple, clear sentences.  There is a lot more that can be said about
this but, if you really don't understand if you are affected then you
need to consult both technical and legal help.

>It would be better to say something like this: If you distribute a
>program linked to the cygwin DLL without making that program available
>under the GPL (or an equivalent allowable license) you are in violation
>of the license under which you received the cygwin DLL in the first
>It is possible, but unlikely, that a court could order a remedy that
>would force you to distribute your program under the GPL.  It is not
>that case that violating the cygwin license means that "your program is
>GPLed" in some instantaneous or automatic fashion, simply as
>consequence of your bad behavior.

That is entirely debatable and you have no basis for making such an
authoritative statement.

>Fears that programs might somehow be automatically forced under the GPL
>may help propagate the (false) perception that the GPL is "viral".

When you use the cygwin DLL in your program and distribute it, you are
implicitly agreeing to the license terms of the cygwin DLL.  That means
that you must adhere to the GPL, ergo your program is GPLed.

It is Red Hat's intent that the only acceptable use of the cygwin DLL
should be in accordance with the GPL as described on the cygwin
licensing page.

If you are distributing your program without checking on the licensing
of the software that it uses, then you get what you deserve.

If you want to debate the fine points of the law, then either contact
Red Hat directly or find another mailing list.  Until then, my poorly
worded statements will have to serve as the definitive answer for this
Christopher Faylor			spammer? ->
Cygwin Co-Project Leader
TimeSys, Inc.

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

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