From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23155 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 04:04:01 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 04:04:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 15618 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2002 04:03:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 4665 Received: (qmail 15607 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 04:03:43 -0000 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:03:33 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: Dan Nelson Cc: Andrew Markebo , Gary Oberbrunner , Zefram , Gabor , zsh-users@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: usage of zsh for profit? Message-ID: <20020208040333.GB25500@redhat.com> Reply-To: zsh-users@sunsite.dk References: <20020206104852.A74470@vmunix.com> <20020206160524.GB26831@fysh.org> <3C6176A8.1050600@genarts.com> <20020208004516.GA19351@redhat.com> <20020208033911.GC14616@dan.emsphone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020208033911.GC14616@dan.emsphone.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i [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