> -----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.