> yeah, cygwin32.dll is under the GPL. So? It's a DLL, like libc5 and
> libc6 are... [the *only* thing I'm aware of that actually uses the
> LGPL is libg++; it was as much of an experiment as anything, and I'm
> not aware of any not-otherwise-free software taking advantage of those
> terms...] J
> I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
> want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
> link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
> that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin3
Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
> > want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
> > link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
> > that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
>
> Two que
> I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
>
> I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to me
to be very limiting of commercial so
> Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin32.dll different from libc5.so
> in this regard (since the license for both is the same: GPL)
libc5 appears to be under the GPL, while libc6 appears to be under
the LGPL. Weird. Does that mean that anything that is linked
against libc5 has to be GPL'd?
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> >
> > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
>
> Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> >
> > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
>
> Yep, the copyright f
> Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Cheers,
- Jim
pgp6b75kk1gUm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
>
> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
I'm not sure from a copyright standpoint how that works. A copyright
means that you are protected from me using your copyri
> I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
> want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
> link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
> that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
Actually, it is different. GPL-ed softwar
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> >
> > > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> > >
> > > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
> >
> > Yep, t
On 2 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> >
> > > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> > >
> > > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > > all*, thou
> Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including
> portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being
Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're
*not* including portions of libc5 in your binary. A replacement libc5
that met the "i
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> For some more perspective on the "interface" argument, go back and see
> some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU "libmp" (multiple
> precision integer math library.) See also the discussion of just a
> week or three ago about a company shipping a co
> For some more perspective on the "interface" argument, go back and see
> some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU "libmp" (multiple
> precision integer math library.)
Actually, I had a very similar polite argument with RMS via private e-mail
(about linking Java libs with mixed GPL/LG
[ I've not been following this thread too closely,
so if I've got the wrong idea, please forgive me ]
> The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
> restrictive as the Qt license. Particularily in the case of libraries,
> using it as Cygnus is doing (to make money) goe
On Jun 1, Jim Pick wrote
> Actually, I had a very similar polite argument with RMS via private e-mail
> (about linking Java libs with mixed GPL/LGPL/proprietary licenses). He
> was pretty solid on the fact that run-time linking is the same as
> "compiled-in" linking.
Yep, once the run-time linkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I really must admit I find the GPL very cryptic, it's hard to say exactly
> what it means if you look at very small detail. I do think that it makes
> sense however that you should be able to put RCS in a dll and link
>
> On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > For some more perspective on the "interface" argument, go back and see
> > some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU "libmp" (multiple
> > precision integer math library.) See also the discussion of just a
> > week or three ago about a company
Buddha Buck wrote:
>However, the unique interface issue does exist with regard to gzip,
>since that is purely a GPLed product. I think a libgzip or a gzip.dll
>would run into the same issues as the libdb did.
The source code to the zlib library has been released together with ssh
with a non-GP
> However, the unique interface issue does exist with regard to gzip,
> since that is purely a GPLed product. I think a libgzip or a gzip.dll
> would run into the same issues as the libdb did.
Not to distract from the original point (thank you for the clearer
explanation of the libmp issue!) no
> [ I've not been following this thread too closely,
> so if I've got the wrong idea, please forgive me ]
>
> > The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
> > restrictive as the Qt license. Particularily in the case of libraries,
> > using it as Cygnus is doing (to ma
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I really must admit I find the GPL very cryptic, it's hard to say exactly
> what it means if you look at very small detail. I do think that it makes
> sense however that you should be able to put RCS in a dll and link to the
> dll.
That depends, if you put it in a .dll, a
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> The cygwin.dll case in an example where the GPL is being used to restrict the
> rights of other people using the code so that they can't do something taboo
> such as charge money, while at the same time, reserving the right for the
> authors to do the exact same thing.
> On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> > The cygwin.dll case in an example where the GPL is being used to restrict
> > the
> > rights of other people using the code so that they can't do something taboo
> > such as charge money, while at the same time, reserving the right for the
> > authors to do the ex
On Jun 2, Raul Miller wrote
>
> [Note: what RMS is trying to argue against is the stunt
> Steve Jobs & Co. pulled with Objective C.]
Could you describe what the said 'stunt' was? I'm curious...
Christian
pgpyv2Q82qumI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including
> > portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being
>
> Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're
> *not* including portions of libc5 in yo
Hi Jim,
> Imagine if Microsoft demanded that everybody had to use a certain
> license in order to run on top of their operating system.
Well, they do actually.
Microsoft charges for the licences to use it's ``operating systems''.
If the Freeware community produces software that ends up helping
Well, maybe the GPL is broken when it comes to situations like this. What
I don't understand is, if something doesn't contain any GPL'd code, how
can the GPL force me to put my product under it. So it has the interface
calls to library/.dll, copyrights don't cover how something works,
patents d
Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> libdb would be an issue if you used the db interfaces; if you used the
> dbm_* interfaces, you'd presumably be ok...
But the original libdb was covered by the BSD copyright; the libc6
copyright states: "All code incorporated from 4.4 BSD is under
> On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> > Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg
> > to cygwin32.
>
> Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under
> gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if
> it wasn't, I don't understand how
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg
> to cygwin32.
Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under
gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if
it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd dll co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
>
> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
> Can too. Read the law.
>
> The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what they
> put in it.
Although they _can_ restrict you f
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
> >
> > Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
> Can too. Read the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 07.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> >> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
> >
> > Can too. Read the law.
> >
> > The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from d
37 matches
Mail list logo
