On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:27:36 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian Ford wrote: > >>> Is it true that any application I compile under cygwin's >>> gcc/g++ is >>> automatically under the GPL? Is so I've been doing some >>> violating... >>> sorry. >> >> This will link your binary to the cygwin DLL by default. Unless >> you have >> purchased a buy out contract from Red Hat, yes. > > There are some exceptions, IIRC. For more information, see > <http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_8.html#SEC136> or consult a lawyer. > Igor
I'm treading on very thin ice here with respect to being OT but I beg your indulgence. From the link above: "To cover the GNU GPL requirements, the basic rule is if you give out any binaries, you must also make the source available. " Which means if I use GNU GPL software to make a commercial product (selling and distribution implied), the product must be GPL, source exposed, etc. BUT, if I use GPL in a bank to create software used by bank customers or in back overnight process, since I'm NOT selling the software, I don't have to expose squat. Yes? If so, then the GPL-is-viral argument goes by the wayside for all non-software development companies. Is that a reasonable interpretation? -- Matthew O. Persico -- 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/
