-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
Did you read this:under the GPL
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled programs will also have to be free software distributed
with source code available to all."I sure did. My understand was, and someone else already mentioned, that you're just using Cygwin to faciliate the build process, but that the final executable does not use any part of Cygwin at all. Kind of like using GNU Emacs to edit the code, but not including it in the distribution. Maybe I'm wrong on that -- since I haven't and don't plan to build PostgreSQL on Windows, I may have missed something.
That may be the intent. But it does not agree with the wording. I think it would be dangerous to use it.
Consider this fragment: "This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled executables do not make use of the Cygwin library,..." What are: 1. 'the tools'
Are these the Cygwin tools? Are they your tools? Some combination?
2. 'compiled executables'
The cygwin executables? Your executables? Both?
3. 'the Cygwin library'
The library for cygwin1.dll? _All_ libraries distributed with Cygwin? Something else?
All of these are extremely ambiguous. Are you willing to risk your company's safety on your personal interpretation?
I have similar problems with the reading of the LGPL. The reading of the actual contract words can give interpretations far more harsh than the supposed original intent. A reasonable interpretation can mean that LGPL is not different than GPL at all.
You have quoted out of context. Before the clause you quoted it says this:
"By default, all executables link against this library (and in the process include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). "
Native pg will NOT be linked against any cygwin libraries at all, and so the following sentence which you quote does not apply.
Furthermore, there is a specific exemption below that says this: ---------------------------
In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs whose sources are distributed under a license that complies with the Open Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a without libcygwin.a itself causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL.
This means that you can port an Open Source(tm) application to cygwin, and distribute that executable as if it didn't include a copy of libcygwin.a linked into it. Note that this does not apply to the cygwin DLL itself. If you distribute a (possibly modified) version of the DLL you must adhere to the terms of the GPL, i.e. you must provide sources for the cygwin DLL.
See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html for the precise Open Source Definition referenced above.
--------------------------
So even if we did link against libcygwin.a we'd be home free.
If there's any doubt (I have none) perhaps someone would like to contact RedHat for a clarification.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
