Re: Licensing fee for cygwin 1.3.X

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 04:49:35PM -0700, Robert Hua wrote:
>Please help me clarify whether Cygwin 1.3.x can be used without
>additional costs under the scenario described below.
>
>I am using my own custom DOS batch scripts to facilitate the launching
>of a commercial application.  Some enhancements that I want to make in
>these scripts require more complex text manipulation than DOS can
>provide, but they are simple to do in a Unix shell (bash).
>
>Could the Unix text commands (e.g.  grep, more, tail, etc) in Cygwin
>1.3.x be used without incurring additional licensing fees?  If a
>licensing fee is required under version 1.3.x, is it also required in a
>"pre-commercial" release of Cygwin (e.g.  B19, B20.1)?

There is a link at the cygwin web page called "Licensing Terms".  I
suggest that you study it closely.  If anything is of concern to you,
then you should have your lawyer offer his opinion on whether you are in
compliance.

However, since no one ever does that and everyone seems to be insistent
on asking for popular opinion here's what I know: Red Hat can't license
any binaries but the cygwin DLL and its accompanying utilities since we
don't own most of the things in the distribution.  That means that your
*only* alternative is to ship the sources for grep, more, tail, etc.

Again, if you are providing binaries for anything, whether it is cygwin
programs or the cygwin DLL, the easiest thing is to include the sources
for all of the binaries along with whatever you're providing.  There are
no "license fees" involved anywhere if you follow this simple rule.

You may be tempted to wonder if there is some way around this
requirement.  There is no practical way around this.  Other people may
respond to this thread offering opinions or expressing other options.  I
am the Red Hat representative for cygwin in this mailing list.  While I
am not a lawyer, I have at least gone to the effort of speaking with
one, for whatever that's worth and he's assured me that my take on the
GPL is accurate.

If you want real assurance, your best bet is to speak with your own
lawyer about the GPL.

cgf
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to aaaspam at sourceware dot org
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/