long double support in cygwin
Sun Nov 12 14:19:00 GMT 2000
> > we have to own what goes into newlib/cygwin or the
> > licenses of the source has to allow distribution of binaries without
> > source code so that cygwin1.dll is encumbered.
> In Bowman's case the library *is* source code, since the whole thing
> is a text header file. I don't see how your legal question would
> apply to inline-math.h.
If the library is just the header, then there is no difference between
the GPL and the LGPL - any app using it would have to include full
sources for any file using that header, so that changes to that header
(the "library") could be made by the end user and applied to their
> For my own part, I think that anyone can go to the internet and pick
> up the original source code, so the question is not a vitally
> important issue any more.
Unfortunately, the GPL and LGPL do *not* allow you to rely on "the
internet" to provide source code. If you distribute a binary, *you*
are responsible for guaranteeing that the sources are available (using
the net for that is OK, but it must be a server *you* control).
However, the key issue for inline-math.h is that, in order to comply
even with the LGPL, any app using it would need to distribute its own
sources anyway, so you might as well have GPL'd it.
> It does not bother me that people distribute such library binaries
> without source code.
If it is your source, you can license that explicitly if you want.
> I probably would not be inclined to assign free software to Red Hat,
> though, because Red Hat is a commercial company.
You don't have to assign it. You can instead grant a sublicence to
us, so that we can use it our way without stopping you from using it
your way. This is what the FSF does too. Chris - can you check our
legal forms and see if we have such a clause?
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com
More information about the Cygwin