This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Licensing question
- To: Peter Mount <petermount at it dot maidstone dot gov dot uk>
- Subject: Re: Licensing question
- From: Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:00:08 -0400
- Cc: "'Erik Hensema'" <erik dot hensema at group2000 dot nl>, cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478C25E74A@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk>
Just to make sure that everyone is clear on this, Cygwin is not released
under the LGPL. If you use cygwin1.dll in your application then your
application must be made available as open source. The way to avoid
this is to compile your program using the -mno-cygwin option.
If you are only releasing parts of a cygwin release such as cygwin1.dll,
ls.exe, gcc.exe, etc. and you are not compiling any of your own
applications using the DLL then those parts must be made available under
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 08:18:52AM +0100, Peter Mount wrote:
>Thanks, that's what I thought.
>It's just that there is a similar thread on one of the postgresql lists
>(this time about the GPL and BSD licences).
>Also, as I have some code released under the LGPL I wanted to make sure
>I had the licences correct.
>From: Erik Hensema [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: 21 October 1999 08:15
>To: 'Peter Mount'; 'Jim.Fairchild@IndSys.ge.com';
>Subject: RE: Licensing question
>>I'm also wondering if the GPL and LGPL are being confused here. Isn't
>>one of the reasons of having the LGPL, the ability to link a GPL'ed
>>library/class library into a non-gpl'ed application without the final
>>result being GPL'ed?
>>As long as you meet the LGPL license (ie: making available the source
>>to the library, etc, etc), would you be ok?
>The LGPL enables you to link an open source library to an closed source
>project. Since you won't be using any LGPL code, this is not an issue
>at all. There is no reason at all to release your own code under the
>The LGPL is just a completely other issue than using GPL'ed programs
>from a commercial application.
>>I have a question regarding the statement, "if you intend to port a
>>commercial (non-GPL'd) application using Cygwin, you will need the
>>commercial license to Cygwin that comes with the supported native Win32
>>GNUPro product". What licensing restrictions apply if you plan on
>>using the Unix utilities only, and will not be developing applications
>>that use the cygwin? The Unix utilities would be used in a commercial
>>application to enable the customer to transition from a UNIX system to
>>a Windows NT system. Thanks for your help.
>Well, I don't think you need a commercial license. You don't link
>anything with GPL code. You don't modify any GPL code (and if you did,
>you could still supply the source). Just like it's legal to sell Linux
>for big bucks, you can sell Cygwin at any cost you like. Generally,
>whats not allowed, is linking non-open-source code with GPL code.
>However, this isn't a matter of source code at all.
>Now a commercial application using binaries compiled from GPL source:
>that's very common. Many, many softwarehouses develop using GCC and
>sell closed-source software. Many commercial websites run
>Linux/Apache/MySQL. Non problem at all.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org