[Mingw-users] MinGW for commercial purposes?

[Philip Köster]

Hey folks,

I'm planning to use MinGW for a commercial project. Is that legal, and how?

I'm not a lawyer and am quickly bored by legal terms. Please respond
ASAP, otherwise I'd have to resort to the Microsoft compiler, which is
something I don't want.

Cheers,
Philip

[Eli Zaretskii]

Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:52:49 +0200
=20
I'm planning to use MinGW for a commercial project. Is that legal

Yes.

and how?

Any way you want, as long as you only use your own code (as opposed t=
o
code written by others).

I'm not a lawyer and am quickly bored by legal terms. Please respon=

d=20

ASAP, otherwise I'd have to resort to the Microsoft compiler, which=

is=20

something I don't want.

I really don't understand the threat and the attitude. I don't think
we did anything to deserve it.

[Philip Köster]

Post by Eli Zaretskii
I really don't understand the threat and the attitude. I don't think
we did anything to deserve it.

Please, don't get me wrong: thanks for your quick answer. I just don't
understand the differences between GPL and LGPL and Apache---there are
way too many licenses around.

AFWIF, I appreciate that MinGW is an excellent piece of computer
science, and I'd like to use it.

But because it has GNU in its name, that rang a bell I might possibly
not be allowed to use it.

Me and my customer would have been willing to pay some money for it. I'd
rather give my money to you than to Microsoft. Hope I could make my
point across.

Best,
--Ph.

[Eli Zaretskii]

Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:23:11 +0200
=20
=20

I really don't understand the threat and the attitude. I don't t=

hink

we did anything to deserve it.

Please, don't get me wrong: thanks for your quick answer. I just do=

n't=20

understand the differences between GPL and LGPL and Apache---there =

are=20

way too many licenses around.

If you use only your own code, and don't call any functions in
libraries that are distributed under GPL, you don't need to worry
about any licenses. If you do call in your code functions from
libraries other than those which came with Windows, you need to study
their respective licenses.

[Earnie Boyd]

Post by Eli Zaretskii

Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:23:11 +0200
From: Philip Köster

Post by Eli Zaretskii
I really don't understand the threat and the attitude. I don't think
we did anything to deserve it.

Please, don't get me wrong: thanks for your quick answer. I just don't
understand the differences between GPL and LGPL and Apache---there are
way too many licenses around.

If you use only your own code, and don't call any functions in
libraries that are distributed under GPL, you don't need to worry
about any licenses. If you do call in your code functions from
libraries other than those which came with Windows, you need to study
their respective licenses.

And since you're bored with the legal jargon then hire a lawyer to do
it. BTW, you will be encumbered with some DLL which themselves are
covered by a modified version of GPL/LGPL which you will need to
distribute with your application if you are distributing it. You are
free to distribute those libraries as long as you also distribute
their source code. The modified language of the license gives you use
of the library without encumbering your application with the GPL.

[Philip Köster]

Post by Earnie Boyd

Post by Eli Zaretskii

Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:23:11 +0200
From: Philip Köster

Post by Eli Zaretskii
I really don't understand the threat and the attitude. I don't think
we did anything to deserve it.

Please, don't get me wrong: thanks for your quick answer. I just don't
understand the differences between GPL and LGPL and Apache---there are
way too many licenses around.

If you use only your own code, and don't call any functions in
libraries that are distributed under GPL, you don't need to worry
about any licenses. If you do call in your code functions from
libraries other than those which came with Windows, you need to study
their respective licenses.

And since you're bored with the legal jargon then hire a lawyer to do
it. BTW, you will be encumbered with some DLL which themselves are
covered by a modified version of GPL/LGPL which you will need to
distribute with your application if you are distributing it. You are
free to distribute those libraries as long as you also distribute
their source code. The modified language of the license gives you use
of the library without encumbering your application with the GPL.

Please. I don't know why this discussion went the wrong way. It wasn't
meant to be like that, believe me. If it was my fault due to the
language barrier---English is not my native tongue---I truly apologize.
I was only irritated to receive such an unfriendly answer on a friendly
question. Can we get back to normal, please? I think my question was
answered already, and I have no hard feelings whatsoever. Cheers. Keep
up the good work.

--Ph.

[Philip Köster]

Post by Earnie Boyd
And since you're bored with the legal jargon then hire a lawyer to do

it. BTW, you will be encumbered with some DLL which themselves are
covered by a modified version of GPL/LGPL which you will need to
distribute with your application if you are distributing it. You are
free to distribute those libraries as long as you also distribute their
source code. The modified language of the license gives you use of the
library without encumbering your application with the GPL.

Oh, okay, so I have to distribute the source code? It is really the
first time that I use GNU stuff for a commercial product and just want
to get it right. This is why I took the time to post to this list. There
are two DLLs that I use, the ones you need to run the CRT, and of course
the whole compiler/linker toolchain.

It wasn't meant to be arrogant, sorry if it sounded so, I just don't
understand all the details of that legal stuff.

--Ph.

[Greg Chicares]

On 2012-08-05 06:02Z, Philip Köster wrote:
[...some files distributed with MinGW are GPL or LGPL...]

Post by Philip Köster
Oh, okay, so I have to distribute the source code? It is really the
first time that I use GNU stuff for a commercial product and just want
to get it right. This is why I took the time to post to this list. There
are two DLLs that I use, the ones you need to run the CRT, and of course
the whole compiler/linker toolchain.

In general, gcc can be used freely even though you do not publish
source code for your product:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
I.e., you can use gcc to compile your own code, and distribute the
resulting object code.

If you need to distribute any DLL from MinGW with your product,
then you should provide that DLL's source code, as discussed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/threads.html#01123
If you can use '-static-libgcc' and (for C++) '-static-libstdc++',
then you don't need to distribute source for those libraries,
because in that case you aren't distributing the DLLs.

You can't distribute the gcc profiling code with your product,
but you almost certainly wouldn't want to.

[JonY]

Post by Philip Köster

Post by Earnie Boyd
And since you're bored with the legal jargon then hire a lawyer to do

it. BTW, you will be encumbered with some DLL which themselves are
covered by a modified version of GPL/LGPL which you will need to
distribute with your application if you are distributing it. You are
free to distribute those libraries as long as you also distribute their
source code. The modified language of the license gives you use of the
library without encumbering your application with the GPL.
Oh, okay, so I have to distribute the source code? It is really the
first time that I use GNU stuff for a commercial product and just want
to get it right. This is why I took the time to post to this list. There
are two DLLs that I use, the ones you need to run the CRT, and of course
the whole compiler/linker toolchain.

Which DLLs exactly?

Post by Philip Köster
It wasn't meant to be arrogant, sorry if it sounded so, I just don't
understand all the details of that legal stuff.

Well, you are, stop that.

Just distribute the sources that you used along with your binary. No, an
attribution in the README is not enough (site might go down, central
copy may go missing etc etc reasons...).

[Philip Köster]

Post by JonY
Which DLLs exactly?

I don't have them right here because I'm not in the office on weekends,
so sorry, I cannot tell you the exact names. You should know what I'm
talking about.

Post by JonY
Well, you are, stop that.

That can only be a misunderstanding. I'm a programmer since 1985 and
never felt arrogant.

--Ph.

[Philip Köster]

Post by JonY
Just distribute the sources that you used along with your binary. No,

an attribution in the README is not enough (site might go down, central
copy may go missing etc etc reasons...).

Okay, I'll do that. Happy now?