Re: [DotGNU]PNet 0.6.4 - Windows package

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:15:38AM -0800, Gopal V wrote:
>>It doesn't matter.  If you are providing binaries you need to
>>distribute source, too.  That's how the GPL works.
>
>I can appreciate your concern over the sources provided for Cygwin1.dll
>.  But I think half the projects in sourceforge distribute cygwin1.dll
>with a Readme.txt that says "The cygwin1.dll provided is from Cygwin
>xx.xxx".

The GPL doesn't say "If everyone else is doing it then it's ok to bypass
the intent of the license" nor does it say "If you are bringing a
potential violation to someone's attention you must also inform them of
all of the other people your contacting with similar concerns".

We are not singling you out.  When a potential GPL violation is brought
to our attention, we try to address it.

>Anyway, this has gotten into a major debate on the technicality of GPL
>...

I haven't seen the debate.  I don't see how there is much room for
debate.  The GPL is black and white on this issue since it is pretty
much the whole reason for its existence.

Perhaps this will be useful:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites

>I just wonder...  will static linking libcygwin help ?  (seeing that
>it's under a slightly different license)

I think it's best not to wonder about interesting ways of bypassing the
GPL with anyone who actually believes in it.  In any event, statically
linking with cygwin is not possible.

Let's just put this in perspective: We make cygwin available under a
specific license.  It's free for your use given this license.  Why would
you want to essentially disrepect our wishes for its distribution?  We're
not asking that you shave off your left eyebrow or neuter your dog.  We're
just asking that you make sources available when you provide the binary.

cgf