From:	alexandr AT hawk DOT pearson DOT udel DOT edu
Subject:	RE: The gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com mailing list
18 Feb 1997 00:41:59 -0800 :
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<199702180640.WAA09106.cygnus.gnu-win32@cygnus.com>
Reply-To:	alexandr AT hawk DOT pearson DOT udel DOT edu
Original-To:	rms AT gnu DOT ai DOT mit DOT edu
Original-Cc:	Bill_Mann AT praxisint DOT com, gnu-win32 <gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com>
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

In Reply to Your Message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23: 30:23 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <23437 DOT 856248017 DOT 1 AT hawk DOT pearson DOT udel DOT edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:40:17 -0500
From: Jerry Alexandratos <alexandr AT hawk DOT pearson DOT udel DOT edu>

: The alternate release of cygwin32 under non-free terms is a separate
: issue from its release under the GPL.  This non-free distribution does
: cause problems for the free software community.  It sets the wrong
: tone, conveys a bad idea.  It also undermines some of the aims of the
: GPL.  For example, it means that some end users will get the software
: without getting the freedom that "free software" stands for.  And when
: the companies that get the non-free licenses make modifications, these
: are likely not to be released ever as free software.

I don't think that this dual-license conveys a bad idea at all.  I see
many benefits.  First, I think that it puts powerful tools (gcc, cygwin,
etc) in the hands of software developers.  It allows for the realization
that there are products other than Microsoft's out there.  Finally, I
think that it could encourage companies to begin releasing source.  If
not, then at least, we as a community of free software users benefit
from the financial support that companies who do not share the same view
impart upon us.

It's probably safe to assume that Cygnus will definitely put much of
this money that can be made into further developing free software.
Likewise, I think that we should keep in mind that cygwin32.dll will
be the same (as oppossed to a crippled free version).

As for users of free software.  I'm one of them.  I appreciate the
benefits of free source.  However, let's be honest.  I know when I'm
forced to purchase a piece of software from a commercial entity, I will
suffer.  I further realize that the only reason I think like this is
because I am part of this free-software generation.  I can look around
the office and see a bunch of other people who don't share my views.  As
much as we'd like to protect and educate the consumer, ultimately, they
get themselves into their own trouble due to their decisions.

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8 
8) darkstar AT strauss DOT udel DOT edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar AT canary DOT pearson DOT udel DOT edu  %   drives my desires."    (8
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -