Mail Archives: cygwin/1999/12/20/04:43:31
Hello Mikey,
Mikey <jrson AT az DOT freei DOT net> wrote:
>> And now the main question: what is _your_ licensing for the stuff?
>>Mingw32 is in public domain, if - let my imagination run away with -
>>you wouldn't impose too much additional restrictions, then:
M> You can't pose additional restrictions on L/GPL software.
M> It would be against the copyleft.
That's innately understood.
M> My patches are in the public domain, anyone can use them
M> for any purpose.
Well, let's clarify the issues.
You proposed the implementation of Posix layer for Win32 (i.e.
run-time library). I don't talk here about precompiled L/GPL software,
nicely packaged and made available via ftp. Solely RTL in our focus.
So, you started with mingw32, which is in the public domain, and
made some patches to it, which you put in public domain. Is this true?
If yes, then what I stress is that your runtime Posix library doesn't
bear GPL with it. Well, when some GPLed software compiled with it,
whole result is GPLed. But when non-GPL source compiled - result is
free to be distributed without all the boring sources. That's exactly
the ability Cygwin is lacking of.
>>
>> Hey, folks, new Posix-on-Win32 implementation
>> emerges, not plagued with GPLedness!!!
M> There is nothing wrong with GPL'edness, I just choose not
M> to assign an unneeded, extra copywrite, to Cygnus, or the FSF,
M> when the L/GPL already specifically handles the situation.
I haven't told there's something wrong with GPL (or Cygwin).
Neither I say there's something good with solution proposed by you.
What I say, however, is that an alternative to Cygwin (or UWIN, or
RSXNTDJ) appears. I can categorize unhappiness with Cygwin in two most
common categories
1) Performance (guys like you(?) and me, who tap their fingers off win9x)
2) Licensing (guys who annoyed with distributing source crap in every
package or having incompatible license)
It's reasonable to target both groups with single product, that's
why I want to make sure that your library qualify for non-GPLedness.
M> If the L/GPL can't stand on it's own merits, many programmers
M> have made a mistake in their copywrite decisions.-)
Sure. And I personally don't care about licensing, but I tried to
represent more general point of view above.
Best regards,
Paul mailto:paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -