> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew@dunslane.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: Postgresql Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port
> 
> 
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Jon Jensen [mailto:jon@endpoint.com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:32 PM
> >>To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> >>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port
> >>
> >>
> >>On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Did you read this:
> >>>"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 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>under the GPL
> >>    
> >>
> >>>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.

You are making an assumption that the follwing sentence is only valid
under conditions of the first.  That is nowhere stated.  That connection
is only implied by your interpretation.

> 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.
> 
> --------------------------

And yet above in the original link it specifies that the open source
project must be 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 UNDER THE GPL
with source code available to all. " {emphasis mine}
 
> 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

Even a trivial and absurd lawsuit can have disastrous consequences.
Consider SCO verses IBM.

Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:54:16 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: Win32 native port


Dann Corbit wrote:

>You are making an assumption that the follwing sentence is only valid
>under conditions of the first.  That is nowhere stated.  That connection
>is only implied by your interpretation.
>  
>

Not at all. the phrase "This means" clearly refers to what went before.

>Even a trivial and absurd lawsuit can have disastrous consequences.
>Consider SCO verses IBM.
>
>  
>

Fine. You sit quaking with fear in your boots. I won't. BTW, according 
to my legal theory *I* own all the code to Postgres. Bizarre? Sure, but 
don't let that stop you worrying about it.

One more thing - there is a Cygwin port of Postgres that *is* linked 
against Cygwin libraries - I haven't heard anybody suggesting that that 
has infected us with GPLing the code.

Let's get real.

andrew




Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:18:18 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: Win32 native port