Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 12:18:52PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> Even though GCC doesn't propagate freedom to programs
>> it compiles
>
>I really wish people would stop using language like this that is inaccurate
>and confusing. It helps fuel the notion that somehow Free Software infects
>things with a GPL virus in a way that proprietary software does not, i.e.
>that Free Software takes away freedom compared to proprietary software when
>of course this is quite false.
>
>Better language would be:
>
>Even though GCC is licensed in a manner that allows programs compiled with
>GCC to be freely distributed without any limitations, this may not be true
>of other third party libraries, and in particular it is not true for 
>Cygwin ....
>
>Yes, I know this is off topic. personally I would be MUCH happier if 
>no one attempted to answer people's licensing questions on this list,
>but instead referred them to other more appropriate lists. Buf if people
>insist on answering, then it would be good for the answers to be accurate.

FWIW, I 100% agree if, for no other reason than I'd like to confine my
personal licensing headaches to one mailing list -- cygwin-ATSIGN-cygwin-PERIOD-com.
There's no reason to be discussing a specific project's licensing
issues here.

Cygwin licensing discussions should really be confined to the cygwin
mailing list.  Over there we have many the delightful discussion where
people reiterate age old complaints about the GPL, argue with points
from the GPL FAQ, question my childhood upbringing for trying to enforce
cygwin licensing, and generally have a rip-roaring good time.

So, I really encourage anyone with cygwin licensing questions to ask
them where it makes sense and leave the gcc mailing list to gcc
development discussions.

cgf
(cygwin maintainer)