Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID:	<19990225191420.16813@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:14:20 +1100
From:	Fergus Henderson <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT OZ DOT AU>
To:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin participation threshold
References:	<13561 DOT 990222 AT is DOT lg DOT ua> <199902221654 DOT LAA07362 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <19990222183222023 DOT AAA254 AT carl_zmola> <19990223214848 DOT A23525 AT cygnus DOT com> <19990225005148 DOT 53402 AT mundook DOT cs DOT mu DOT OZ DOT AU> <19990224121846 DOT A25762 AT cygnus DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.88
In-Reply-To:	<19990224121846.A25762@cygnus.com>; from Christopher Faylor on Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 12:18:46PM -0500

On 24-Feb-1999, Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 1999, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> >Yes, but you can write and distribute proprietry applications or even
> >proprietry kernel modules for Linux without paying anyone a license fee.
> >The same is not true for Cygwin (although it *was* true once, back around
> >version b16, when it was called gnu-win32).
> 
> True, but that is not the point.  I believe this whold thread started
> because I lamented the lack of people contributing directly to cygwin
> development.

You also asked why.  I believe that licensing may be one of the reasons why.
So I don't think my comment is beside the point.  You may disagree with me,
but I think we're talking about the same topic.

> The many contributors to the linux kernel do not do so
> because it is possible to develop proprietary code for linux.

That may not be their direct motivation, but I do think it is a
significant factor.  I think that if it were impossible to develop
proprietry code for Linux, then Linux would have a much smaller user
base, and there would be far fewer contributors to Linux.

> I don't consider companies who create proprietary kernel modules as
> contributing to linux development in any way.

The ability to create proprietry kernel modules is of little importance.
The ability to create proprietry applications is of much greater importance.

> Possibly they help indirectly
> by getting the word out about linux but that is a secondary and, IMO, very
> minor benefit.

I agree that the benefits are indirect and secondary.  However,
I don't think they should be ignored.

In addition to getting the word out, companies which develop proprietry
applications (or kernel modules) often also help

	(1) by using Linux, and in the process sometimes reporting
	    and/or fixing bugs in the kernel and/or the various
	    open-source applications that are part of Linux; sometimes
	    they will even add whole new features which are needed for
	    their proprietry application (or module); and

	(2) by providing software (or drivers) which other people need,
	    and thus encouraging those other people to use Linux,
	    leading to the same benefits as (1).

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au>  |  "Binaries may die
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |   but source code lives forever"
PGP: finger fjh AT 128 DOT 250 DOT 37 DOT 3        |     -- leaked Microsoft memo.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -