> -----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.

Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:50:26 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: 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.

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


Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:35:23 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: Win32 native port