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
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:15:35 -0500
To:	Steve Morris <smorris AT nexen DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin license
Message-ID:	<19990316171535.A2311@cygnus.com>
References:	<19990316130132 DOT 20506 DOT rocketmail AT send105 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <19990316104140 DOT A1113 AT cygnus DOT com> <199903161757 DOT MAA12041 AT brocade DOT nexen DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95.3i
In-Reply-To:	<199903161757.MAA12041@brocade.nexen.com>; from Steve Morris on Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 12:57:28PM -0500

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 12:57:28PM -0500, Steve Morris wrote:
>
>Chris Faylor writes:
> > >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.
> > 
> > I don't know if you've been following RMS's thoughts on the subject but
> > he essentially thinks that the FSF made a mistake with the LGPL.
>
>I have seldom found RMS's thoughts to be compelling. You always have
>to take his adgenda into account and his adgenda is quite complex. I
>do suspect that without LGPL gcc would be a minor player. Every
>deveoper I have ever met that volunteered to work on gcc cut their gcc
>teeth using gcc in a place of employment that used gcc to create
>licensed binary distributed code. These people wouldn't be part of the
>free software movement without LGPL. I think RMS wants to have it both
>ways, the broad distribution that comes with people using gcc
>commercially plus the forcing of software into the free software
>domain. He doesn't like to admit the part that binary distributors
>play in supporting free software. 

FYI, gcc is not LGPLed.   Gcc is GPLed.

cgf

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

- Raw text -