Compliance with the GPL (cygwin)

Robert Collins
Sat Apr 13 05:10:00 GMT 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herbert Valerio Riedel [] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:17 PM

> >    4) mention the availability of the source code for libraries
> >       used to create their windows port somewhere on their
> >       webpage (not strictly necessary, but what's the point of
> >       1 -- 3 if you don't advertise it?)

Just a note (for Chuck). I'm pretty sure that it is a corollary of the
GPL that the source be advertised -  along with the specific licence
being offered. 

> >    VCDImager project: seems mostly compliant; need a reminder to
> >    include also OTHER source code (zlib, libxml)
> [..]
> will do so;
> btw, I do this just for the unstable series; as soon as the official
> stable series come out, they'll lack the .dll's
> btw2: libxml2 was provided in source, I just happen to have deleted it
> by accident

I wonder if you are aware that cygwin has libxml2 in the distribution
now - you can link to the .dll for your unstable series as well, should
you desire.
> ps: just wondering, which personal interest do you have, that others
> (we) comply to the terms? -- plz don't see this question as personal
> attack or something alike.

I can't speak for Chuck, but I think he's got a similar feeling to me.
My interest in seeing the GPL followed is threefold.
1) If the GPL loses the 'threat' power it has now, it will take a test
case to reinstate that. 
2) In my opinion it's the Right Thing to do - to make the source
directly available instead of hoping that someone else has it available.
3) While the GPL is not perfect it's the licence I choose to do the bulk
of my development under, and I've contributed quite a few hours of
'free' work to Cygwin - I don't like to see that abused without credit
being given. 

I really appreciate your quick and friendly response to Chucks email
though - good one!


Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list