Re: [Sablevm-developer] Declaring SableVM ported to Windows... tomorrow ;-)

[Chris P. <chr...@ma...>]

>Can I build a Cygwin program that does not require cygwin1.dll at
>runtime?
>
>No. If your program uses the Cygwin API, then your executable cannot run
>without cygwin1.dll. In particular, it is not possible to statically
>link with a Cygwin library to obtain an independent, self-contained
>executable.
>
>====
>The side question now is that: our app, linked with cygwin.a will use
>cygwin1.dll anyway, so will it be covered by GPL at runtime? Will it
>permit running not open-source binaries legally?
>
>So even though we might be able to get LGPLed SableVM under cygwin,
>this can only be the case if we don't distribute cygwin1.dll with it.
>Whether it is an issue to make user fetch the dll (but not necessarily
>whole cygwin!, just the dll) on his own - depends on a POV.
>  
>

Well, I read it as this:  the libsablevm.dll can be created and 
distributed under the LGPL, but you need cygwin1.dll to run.  If you 
modify cygwin1.dll and distribute the changes, it must be done under the 
GPL.

Just provide two downloads -- one for SableVM, with source, licensed 
under the LGPL, and one for cygwin1.dll, with source, licensed under the 
GPL.  If the cygwin1.dll source isn't part of the sablevm tree then I 
don't see the problem.  However, if you don't want to host the cygwin 
source but just the unmodified .dll, I *think* that's okay -- as long as 
you meet section 3b or 3c of the GPL (the written offer for 3 years does 
not necessarily imply having it available for download without even 
asking, if I read it correctly).

I don't think they would make the exception to allow you to build an 
LGPL'd .dll if the resulting program was GPL'd automatically at runtime 
just because you're forced to link to cygwin1.dll.  That's misleading 
and I don't think Cygwin is out to mislead people.

Cheers,
Chris