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:	<19990316130132.20506.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:01:32 -0800 (PST)
From:	Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To:	earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin license
To:	G DOT Heiser AT unsw DOT edu DOT au
Cc:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
MIME-Version:	1.0

---Gernot Heiser <gernot AT zuse DOT disy DOT cse DOT unsw DOT EDU DOT AU> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "DD" == DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> writes:
> 
> >> However, we can, of course, not relax Stanford's restrictions on
> >> commercial use without their agreement (which seems unlikely).
Hence we
> >> fear that we might be technically in breach of your license if we
link
> >> SimOS against your library, even though we feel that we would be
> >> adhering to the spirit of it.
> 
> DD> You could get a commercial license for cygwin, which would allow
you
> DD> to choose a more restrictive license for SimOS, but then not
allow the
> DD> resulting program to be used commercially.
> 
> Yes, but $8k for a license just to produce code we give away freely to
> students, and while following the spirit (if not the letter) of the
> license seems a bit overdone.

I agree with this.  If an Open Source tool used as an aid in porting
code from one platform to another doesn't allow me to honor the
license of the code I'm porting; of what use is it to be Open Source? 
Since the first time I saw this discussed I've been uneasy about the
license conflicts.  If you (Cygnus) refuse to change the license to
LGPL (which I and many others think should be done) at least supply
exceptions in such cases as these.

What this says to me and most likely other Open Source supporters on
this list is that Cygnus wants to _control_ all Open Source.  I know
the intent isn't this but rather a means to try to make all code using
the cygwin tool to be Open Source unless special provision is made
with the purchase of a special license from the owners (Cygnus) of the
code.  But, the end result speaks louder than the intentions.

Gernot Heiser's predicament is a good example of what is wrong with
the way that the cygwin product is licensed.  Cygnus, I as an Open
Source supporter speaking to an Open Source supporter, plead and beg
with you to give Gernot Heiser the privilege of using cygwin with his
package without paying anything to do so.  Open Source is and should
always be free.  (Yes, I know you need to pay the bills, but this one
isn't the same as someone making money from commercial software).

==
-                        \\||//
-------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
--                earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com               --
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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

- Raw text -