usage of zsh for profit?

usage of zsh for profit?

[Gabor]

Hi,

my company would like to use the NT port of zsh to distribute with its
product so we can write a reasonable shell script to do some
information gathering.  We'd just be using the zsh binary and write
some shell scripts.  No zsh source will be modified.  Are there any
hangups?  The main reason is that batch scripts are braindead and we
don't want to write a program if we don't have to.  We already have a
Bourne shell script that does some info gathering on Unixen and we
just want to do a quick port of it.

I hope this is the right place to ask.

Thanks.

Re: usage of zsh for profit?

[Zefram]

Gabor wrote:
>my company would like to use the NT port of zsh to distribute with its
>product so we can write a reasonable shell script to do some
>information gathering.

There is no problem with this.  Zsh is free for all to use (and to modify,
etc.); there is no distinction between commercial and non-commercial use.
See the LICENCE file for details (you should have received a copy with
zsh, it's in the top-level directory of the source distribution).

-zefram

Re: usage of zsh for profit?

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Zefram wrote:

 > Gabor wrote:
 >
 >> my company would like to use the NT port of zsh to distribute with
 >>  its product so we can write a reasonable shell script to do some 
information
 >>  gathering.
 >>
 >
 > There is no problem with this.  Zsh is free for all to use (and to
 > modify, etc.); there is no distinction between commercial and
 > non-commercial use. See the LICENCE file for details (you should
 > have received a copy with zsh, it's in the top-level directory of
 > the source distribution).

But it's actually a cygwin program, at least on Windows, right?  Aren't 
all cygwin programs GPLed because of cygwin1.dll?  Now as to whether 
including a GPL program in your commercial product is OK I don't know, 
IANAL.  And perhaps I'm even wrong about the cygwin thing, but AFAIK 
that's why MinGW was invented -- cygwin licensing problems.

-- Gary Oberbrunner

Re: usage of zsh for profit?

[Andrew Markebo]

And the endless discussion begins.. 

| But it's actually a cygwin program, at least on Windows, right?

Depends on how they port it.. probably

| Aren't all cygwin programs GPLed because of cygwin1.dll?  Now as to

Well you actually can compile a program with cygwin gcc and skip
cygwin1.dll, but probably not in this case.. 

| whether including a GPL program in your commercial product is OK I

Well it is ok, as long as you provide the source to the stuff using
cygwin1.dll, zsh in this case, and the cygwin1.dll source too of
course.. If I am not completely off in my readings..

Earlier you could buy/fix a license from redhat to use cygwin1.dll
commercially, without needing to send sources.. No idea how it is
today.

        /Andy
-- 
 The eye of the beholder rests on the beauty!

Re: usage of zsh for profit?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:13:53PM +0100, Andrew Markebo wrote:
>And the endless discussion begins.. 
>
>| But it's actually a cygwin program, at least on Windows, right?
>
>Depends on how they port it.. probably
>
>| Aren't all cygwin programs GPLed because of cygwin1.dll?  Now as to
>
>Well you actually can compile a program with cygwin gcc and skip
>cygwin1.dll, but probably not in this case.. 
>
>| whether including a GPL program in your commercial product is OK I
>
>Well it is ok, as long as you provide the source to the stuff using
>cygwin1.dll, zsh in this case, and the cygwin1.dll source too of
>course.. If I am not completely off in my readings..
>
>Earlier you could buy/fix a license from redhat to use cygwin1.dll
>commercially, without needing to send sources.. No idea how it is
>today.

You can still purchase a cygwin "buy-out" license but it sounds like,
for this application, it is just simple enough to provide the sources
under the terms of the GPL.

Note that if you provide the Cygwin DLL, you have to make sources
available for it as well, not just zsh.

The cygwin buy-out would allow you to not distribute the sources for the
DLL.  That means that you'd only have to worry about the ZSH licensing
terms which seem pretty straightforward.

Again, I am not advocating this.  It seems like it should be pretty easy
to just tar up the cygwin sources for whatever you're distributing and
include them somewhere on a CD or, alternately, be ready to provide the
sources if someone asks for them.

(No, just pointing to the cygwin web site isn't enough to satisfy the GPL)

cgf

Re: usage of zsh for profit?

[Dan Nelson]

In the last episode (Feb 07), Christopher Faylor said:
> Note that if you provide the Cygwin DLL, you have to make sources
> available for it as well, not just zsh.
> 
> The cygwin buy-out would allow you to not distribute the sources for the
> DLL.  That means that you'd only have to worry about the ZSH licensing
> terms which seem pretty straightforward.
> 
> Again, I am not advocating this.  It seems like it should be pretty easy
> to just tar up the cygwin sources for whatever you're distributing and
> include them somewhere on a CD or, alternately, be ready to provide the
> sources if someone asks for them.
> 
> (No, just pointing to the cygwin web site isn't enough to satisfy the GPL)

I seem to remember that this IS enough, as long as you're simply
building stock zsh with stock cygwin.  It's only when you make changes
that the "you must make sources available for two years" clause really
kicks in.  I mean, how many cygwin mirrors do we really need?

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson@allantgroup.com

Re: usage of zsh for profit?

[Christopher Faylor]

[Reply-To set to zsh-users - beware]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:39:11PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
>In the last episode (Feb 07), Christopher Faylor said:
>> Note that if you provide the Cygwin DLL, you have to make sources
>> available for it as well, not just zsh.
>> 
>> The cygwin buy-out would allow you to not distribute the sources for the
>> DLL.  That means that you'd only have to worry about the ZSH licensing
>> terms which seem pretty straightforward.
>> 
>> Again, I am not advocating this.  It seems like it should be pretty easy
>> to just tar up the cygwin sources for whatever you're distributing and
>> include them somewhere on a CD or, alternately, be ready to provide the
>> sources if someone asks for them.
>> 
>> (No, just pointing to the cygwin web site isn't enough to satisfy the GPL)
>
>I seem to remember that this IS enough, as long as you're simply
>building stock zsh with stock cygwin.  It's only when you make changes
>that the "you must make sources available for two years" clause really
>kicks in.  I mean, how many cygwin mirrors do we really need?

Sorry, but you're remembering wrongly.  That's not how the GPL works.
You can't rely on someone else to distribute the sources for you.  That's
what you'd be doing if you pointed to a Red Hat site for cygwin.

It seems like every single person who wants to use a Cygwin-derived
binary wants things work like that, but it doesn't.

I hate to say this, but if you are releasing binaries you must also
make sources available for every GPLed component.  If you built zsh
with cygwin then it is "infected" with the GPL.

Btw, I'm the Cygwin Engineering Manager for Red Hat.  I've been over
this many times with very many people.

Usually, after I try to tell someone that this isn't how the GPL works,
they tell me that the are good "Open Source" developers and wonder why
I'm picking on them.  I am not saying that I advocate this or that it
is the perfect way to distribute cygwin.  I'm just saying that this
is what the GPL dictates.

IANAL, yaddda, yadda...

cgf